SUNDAY SUN

Toyota said on Monday that some cases of sudden unintended acceleration still occurring in vehicles that had been repaired might have been the result of fixes being done incorrectly. The carmaker said it was confident that the repairs were effective when done properly. Federal safety regulators are looking into the reports of unintended NBA basketball jersey acceleration in repaired vehicles — it received more than 60 as of last week — and warned Toyota that it could order a new remedy if the current one did not solve the problem. The regulators, along with officials from Toyota, have been trying to contact all of the drivers who filed the reports. “Only a few of them have we been able to confirm and verify,” a Toyota spokesman, Mike Michels said. “Many of them are not verifiable.” But Mr. Michels added, that “in some cases, it had to do with the repair not being done completely.” The repair process varies for different models among the more than eight million vehicles that Toyota has recalled worldwide because of problems with their accelerator pedals. For vehicles recalled because the pedal could stick or become hard to operate, technicians must insert a small steel shim into the pedal assembly. For vehicles with pedals that could become trapped under the floor mat, some of the pedal is shaved off and technicians may remove some floor padding. Dealerships are also adding brake override systems, which are meant to deactivate the accelerator when the brake pedal is pressed. Toyota has highlighted its technicians in several television ads aimed at assuring customers that it is fixing the problems. “Our dealers are repairing up to 50,000 vehicles a day with confidence,” the voiceover in one ad says. Mr. Michels made the comments at a news conference that Toyota held in an effort to rebut a Southern Illinois University professor who told a House panel last month that he was able to replicate an electronic cause for sudden acceleration in Toyotas. Engineers from a consulting firm hired by Toyota said the professor’s conclusions were attained by manipulating the vehicle’s circuitry and that the situation would not occur in the real world. The engineers also showed that they could produce Penny Hardaway similar results on non-Toyota vehicles, including those from Ford, Honda and BMW. The professor’s demonstration “is not evidence of a design flaw or a safety risk, whether in Toyota vehicles or in any other manufacturer’s vehicles,” Shukri J. Souri, a principal with the consulting firm, Exponent, said. Te professor, David W. Gilbert, acknowledged in his testimony that he was trying to deliberately manipulate the vehicle into speeding up without generating an error code or entering a fail-safe mode, and said his ability to do that should be cause for concern. Safety Research & Strategies, a Massachusetts consulting firm that hired Professor Gilbert and is compiling data for plaintiffs in lawsuits against Toyota, posted a response to Toyota’s arguments Monday. “In general, Exponent’s report mischaracterizes Dr. Gilbert’s findings, but it does validate his primary findings — Toyota’s fail-safe system does not always detect critical errors or go into fail-safe mode as the company has claimed,” the response said. The demonstration did not directly address questions about whether sudden unintended acceleration might be caused by a defect in a vehicle’s electronic throttle control system, though officials said they have not found evidence of such a flaw. Also on Monday, the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked Toyota to turn over a 2006 memo in which six company employees in Japan raised questions about the safety of the vehicles. The memo was reported Vince Carter in The Los Angeles Times on Monday. “If senior Toyota officials ignored important safety concerns raised by their own employees, it calls into question Toyota’s corporate priorities and its commitment to safety,” Representative Edolphus Towns, Democrat of New York, wrote to Yoshimi Inaba, the president of Toyota Motor North America.

Children love airplanes! It probably seemed like a perfectly good idea to an air traffic controller at Kennedy International Airport to bring his children to work last month — heck, this country has a whole day set aside for that sort of thing. But one idea led to another — “Dad, can I help the nice planes take off?” — and a young boy was heard clearing three jets for departure on Feb. 16. The child spoke to five pilots in all, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. wholesale ed hardy The next day, officials said, the same employee let his daughter speak to two pilots over the air traffic radios. The recordings were released on Tuesday, and now a probably well-meaning father is in trouble. There are still several weeks before Take Your Child to Work Day, on April 22, but it is never too soon for New Yorkers to heed this cautionary tale and plan ahead so as to not find themselves under federal investigation or writing a giant check for a big “oops” that day. There are plenty of places in New York, after all, where children acting their age can become a six-figure situation in no time. As for the unidentified controller at Kennedy, he and his supervisor have been suspended and are the subject of an F.A.A. investigation. On the recording, a young boy tells a pilot he’s “cleared for takeoff,” and the pilot tells him he has done an “awesome job.” Another man, presumably the child’s father, says, “That’s what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school.” Not surprisingly, the F.A.A. this week banned bringing children or anyone else into air traffic operational areas. “This lapse in judgment not only violated F.A.A.’s own policies, but common sense standards for professional conduct. These kinds of distractions are totally unacceptable,” said Randy Babbitt, the administrator of the agency. “We have an incredible team of professionals who safely control our nation’s skies every single day. This kind of behavior does not reflect the true caliber of our work force.” Consider other city occupations that could, in the unpredictable and innocent world of children, become the subject of a discussion that begins with the words, “In hindsight...” Children love dolls! But best to keep them away from the colorful ed hardy women belts dolls on display at the exhibition “Five Thousand Years of Japanese Art: Treasures from the Packard Collection” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Sackler Wing Galleries. Among the 180 pieces are three Kakiemon ware figures of valuable porcelain. To make matters worse, one of them is a cute little dog. “You don’t really play with it,” said Naomi Takafuchi, a senior press officer at the museum. “If it’s broken, it’s very dangerous.” Not to mention expensive, although just how much was unclear Wednesday. “We don’t discuss the value,” Ms. Takafuchi said. “Kakiemon type is a very famous type of porcelain made in Japan,” she added. Children love chocolate! But perhaps not a great idea: giving young ones unfettered access to large quantities of expensive chocolate. There are at least 14 boutique Godiva chocolate shops in the city, according to Godiva’s Web site. Turning your back on a child in any one of them seems unwise. It is unclear how many of the shops carry the Milk Chocolate Pearls with Caffe Latte, but each cute little box of 18 pearls — in a shiny box, no less — costs $71.10. And now, freshly amped on caffeine, the children will be ready to seek out the chocolate holy grail, the “signature assortment of classic Belgian chocolates,” the Gold Ballotin. Price: $150. Children love fire trucks! Some even love fire, and who would not enjoy a turn at the business end of a fire hose? Sorry — not in this town. “The Fire Department’s a big family,” and children are no strangers to firehouses, but that’s as far as it goes, said Frank Dwyer, a spokesman. “We’re not bringing them along on calls. They’re not going out on emergency situations. ???? We have a no-ride-along policy.” Further questioning revealed that the policy goes for big kids — i.e., reporters — as well.

Funny you should ask, because I just gave you a $10 bill, and my latte and raspberry scone came to $5.75. As much as I think you’re pleasing to look at, and you do magical things with frothy milk, I just don’t see your services commanding a 70-plus percent premium over the market rate for my breakfast. And you, my dear bartender, who cracked open a $4 beer bottle, and handed me back my change entirely in a stack of one-dollar notes. Very subtle. As though the sheer bulk of that paper would deter me from putting it back in my wallet, and, ed hardy on sale defeated, I’d simply leave it there for you like a burnt offering on your sticky altar. At least you two left me a choice, unlike the menu last night, whose fine print stated how “parties of six or more will be charged a 20 percent gratuity.” Because there’s simply no way that six adults can gauge the service of a meal (one of hundreds in their lives) with any degree of accuracy. Better to just slap us with a perfunctory tax and screw up our orders anyway. Once that tip is locked in, who cares if the fish is cold? Yes, I know you’re all underpaid. But guess what? So am I. When I get $500 for an article that I think is worth $1,000, you won’t see me e-mail the editor, saying, “Just so you know, service isn’t included.” Do I ask you to come into my workplace and supplement my meager income? No, I don’t. Sure, you’re in the service industry. But doesn’t that mean that ed hardy t-shirts my gratuity should be a reward for better service, or at least an incentive? It sure wasn’t to the taxi driver the other night, who sped through two red lights, hopped a cement divider (nearly toppling his S.U.V.) and then strongly “suggested” that I elect the 25 percent tip option on the credit card payment system. Maybe if I had paid up, his next passenger would have had a smoother ride. Oh, sure, I’m cheap. But not as cheap as your boss, apparently, who figures he can pay you the minimum wage of $4.65 for servers, and the customer will just pick up the rest of your living expenses. Imagine if everyone did that. As you file out of the airplane, there’s the pilot, standing with his palm outstretched like a doorman who just let you into the hotel: “Hope you enjoyed your flight. Ahem, bit of a rough landing there, ahem. ed hardy woman shoes Not too easy to pull off, you know. Oh, why thank you, sir. You shouldn’t have.” I could elect not to tip, but that is as much an option as refusing to pay your income tax because you’re a member of the Tea Party. So here’s the deal: I’ll keep forking over my change, you keep smiling, and we’ll both lobby for an increase in the minimum wage.

A retired police lieutenant was charged Wednesday with obstruction of justice, the first charge in a wide-ranging federal inquiry into whether police misconduct led to civilian deaths in the chaotic days after Hurricane Katrina. The charge stems from the shooting deaths of two civilians, one of them nike basketball shoes mentally retarded, by police officers on the Danziger Bridge in eastern New Orleans on Sept. 4, 2005, as floodwaters filled the city. The police officers had claimed they were responding to gunfire. Four other civilians were shot and seriously wounded. A bill of information, which was unsealed on Wednesday, describes Lt. Michael Lohman, who was working at a temporary headquarters nearby, arriving at the bridge and seeing dead and wounded civilians, none of whom had weapons. Concluding that the shooting was “legally unjustified,” he spoke to officers at the scene who were already planning to lie about the shootings, according to prosecutors. Lieutenant Lohman and another investigator did little to examine the scene, and later encouraged two police sergeants involved to go back to the bridge and dispose of shell casings that were left behind, according to the bill of information. Lieutenant Lohman was expected to plead guilty to the charge against him in federal court on Wednesday afternoon. The bill of information describes how Lieutenant Lohman and others who were involved in the investigation repeatedly helped officers who were involved to modify their stories to make them sound more believable. They made up details, like a claim that one of the people who was shot had reached for a “shiny object” in his waistband. One of the investigators was accused of planting a gun at the scene. At one point, the bill of information says, Lieutenant Lohman was frustrated that the cover-up story in the report, which was drafted by a police sergeant, “was not logical,” so he “personally drafted up a 17-page false report” Tim Duncan and provided it to the sergeant to submit as the official report. Lieutenant Lohman is also described as lying in an interview he gave to the F.B.I. in May of last year. At least two other officers have received target letters in the federal investigation, one of whom was assigned to the investigation and another who was involved in the shooting. The charge against Lieutenant Lohman shows the scope of the federal probe, which goes beyond the actual shooting to the activities of the police who were assigned to look into the deaths. In 2006, the seven officers who were directly involved in the shooting were charged with murder and attempted murder, but the charges were dismissed in late 2008 by a judge who cited improprieties in the handling of the case. The United States attorney’s office picked up the case soon after. The federal investigation took place throughout 2009, during which dozens of police officers testified before grand juries, federal agents seized files from the police homicide division and Danziger Bridge was shut down for hours as agents looked for evidence. Several other cases are under investigation by federal authorities, including the shooting death of Henry Glover, 31, whose remains were eventually discovered in a burned car parked behind a police station in the Algiers section of Allen Iverson New Orleans. This case was brought to the attention of authorities by an article that appeared in The Nation magazine in December 2008 and at ProPublica.org. A spokeswoman for the New Orleans Police Department declined to comment, citing the federal investigation.

President Obama began what may be his final push to win enactment of a health care overhaul, laying out a legislative blueprint on Monday that seeks to unify House and Senate Democrats but makes no big new concessions to Republicans. Mr. Obama’s plan, which the White House said would cost ed hardy on sale $950 billion over a decade, sticks largely to the version passed by the Senate in December but addresses some of the main concerns of House leaders who are demanding more help for the middle class. Mr. Obama’s proposal — the first time the president has provided a detailed road map for what he wants a health overhaul to look like — is the opening act to a week of high drama that will culminate on Thursday, when the president convenes Democrats and Republicans at an all-day televised health care “summit” at Blair House. The White House is hoping the session can jump start the stalled health bill. “We view this as the opening bid for the health meeting,” Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director, told reporters Monday morning, adding, “We took our best shot at bridging the differences.” But among Republicans leaders, the initial reaction was negative. Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, said that Mr. Obama had “crippled the credibility” of Thursday’s meeting by proposing “the same massive government takeover of health care.” Even Democrats took a wait-and-see attitude; House leaders did not immediately embrace the plan but instead scheduled a caucus meeting for Monday. And the Congressional math is daunting for the administration. Mr. Obama has lost the 60-vote supermajority that allowed him to win passage of a bill in the Senate, which means he would either have to attract Republican support or push the bill through with a simple majority using the complex parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation — a route that the White House pointedly did not rule out on Monday. In the House, he needs 217 votes (the number is ordinarily 218, but two seats are vacant) — a number that could be difficult to muster, especially because Mr. Obama’s bill does not include the tighter restrictions on payments for abortions favored by abortion opponents among House Democrats. The bill is intended to achieve Mr. Obama’s broad goals of expanding coverage to the uninsured while driving down health premiums and imposing what the White House calls “common sense rules of the road” for insurers, including ending the unpopular practice of discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. It would offer more money to help cash-strapped states pay for Medicaid over a four-year period, and, in a nod to concerns among the elderly, end the unpopular “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug program. The measure is posted on the White House ed hardy bags purses Web site. The White House projects that the bill would extend coverage to 31 million people who are currently uninsured, at a cost over 10 years of $950 billion — more than the $871 billion the Senate would have spent, but less than the $1.05 trillion for the version passed by the House. The administration estimates that its plan would reduce the federal deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years — and about $1 trillion over the second decade — by cutting spending and reining in waste and fraud. But the measure has not yet been evaluated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The director of the budget office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, said on Monday that the White House had not yet provided enough detail for his team to make a full analysis. The nonpartisan budget office is the official scorekeeper in Congress, providing lawmakers with the figures that are used to determine the cost of legislation and its effect on the federal budget. Mindful that the budget office is viewed as having the last word, the White House said that it would be open to amending the proposal if a full analysis showed the cost to be substantially different from the administration’s estimates. In many respects, Mr. Obama’s measure looks much like the version the Senate passed on Christmas Eve — and indeed, senior White House officials acknowledged on a morning conference call that they had used the Senate bill as a template. But there are several critical differences that appear designed to appeal to House Democrats, who have voiced deep concerns about the Senate measure and its effects on the middle class. To begin with, Mr. Obama would eliminate a controversial special deal for Nebraska — widely derided by Republicans as the “cornhusker kickback” — that called for the federal government to pay the full cost of a Medicaid ed hardy underwear loungewear expansion for that state. Instead, the White House would help all states absorb the cost of the Medicaid expansion from 2014, when it begins, until 2017. And while the president adopts the Senate’s proposed excise tax on high-cost, employer sponsored insurance plans, Mr. Obama makes some crucial adjustments based on an agreement reached in January with organized labor leaders, while also trying to avoid the appearance of special treatment for unions. Most crucially, the president would delay imposing the tax until 2018 for all policies, not just for health benefits provided through collectively-bargained union contracts. One unanswered question is whether the White House will attempt to push the bill through Congress using reconciliation, ordinarily reserved for budget bills. The procedure enables legislation to pass on a simple majority vote, but sharply restricts a bill’s language to provisions that have a direct impact on federal spending and revenues. Mr. Pfeiffer suggested that is the route the White House would take in the event of a Republican filibuster. “The president expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” he said, “and our proposal is designed to give ourselves maximum flexibility to insure that, if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform.” In one sense, the release of the bill marks an extraordinary reversal for a president who has long said he would leave legislating to the legislators. Mr. Obama made clear from the outset of the health care debate that he would not follow the footsteps of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who presented Congress with a sweeping health care proposal — only to see it fall flat on Capitol Hill. Instead, Mr. Obama left it to Congress to produce its own measure. But after months of work, the House and Senate have been unable to close the gap between their bills. So the president, who had promised to post a Democratic measure on the Internet 72 hours in advance of Thursday’s health care meeting, was forced to take matters into his own hands. Like the Senate version, Mr. Obama’s bill does not include a so-called public option, a government-backed insurance plan to compete with the private sector. And the bill offers the Senate’s less restrictive language on abortion; it does not include the so-called “Stupak amendment,” which would bar insurers from offering abortion coverage to anyone buying a policy with a federal subsidy. The absence of the Stupak provision, named for Representative Bart Stupak, the conservative Michigan Democrat, could complicate matters for Mr. Obama in the House, where ed hardy women accessories conservatives, led by Mr. Stupak, are adamant that the provision be included. Mr. Obama largely adopted the Senate’s approach to paying for the legislation, including a proposed increase in the Medicare payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and for couples earning more than $250,000. He opted for the Senate’s proposal to create state-based insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, rather than a single national exchange as proposed by the House. Many House Democrats worry that state exchanges would create uneven results by allowing states with lax insurance regulations to continue a hands-off approach. And Mr. Obama adopted the Senate’s proposal to set a uniform eligibility threshold for Medicaid at 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The House had proposed setting eligibility at 150 percent of the poverty level. House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had expressed serious concerns that, under the Senate bill, the subsidies provided to help moderate-income Americans afford private insurance would not be sufficient to make coverage affordable. The Senate had provided somewhat less generous subsidies than the House for individuals and families earning below 300 percent of the federal poverty level or roughly $66,150 for a family of four, while the House bill had been less generous to those earning between $66,150 and $88,200. Mr. Obama generally favored the Senate’s approach, but made a stab at compromise by proposing larger federal subsidies than the Senate bill did for Americans in two income categories — those earning between 133 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level, or roughly $33, 075 to $44,100 for a family of four, and those earning between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $66,150 to $88,200 ed hardy woman caps for a family of four. Still, some rank-and-file lawmakers are likely to raise concerns that working-class families will still find it difficult to afford health benefits. Under the president’s plan, a family earning about $88,000 a year would pay no more than 9.5 percent of income toward annual health insurance premiums, or about $8,380, not including out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments or deductibles. Under the Senate bill, such a family could have paid $8,643 a year in premiums and under the House bill as much as $10,584 a year. Under the president’s plan, a family earning $22,050 would have to pay $441 in annual premium costs compared to $331 under the House bill. And a family earning $33,100 would have to pay up to $1,324 a year in premiums under Mr. Obama’s plan, compared to a maximum of $993 under the House bill.

Brushing aside international calls for stricter sanctions against it, Iran said Tuesday it had begun enriching uranium for use in a medical reactor to a higher level of purity, raising the stakes again in its dispute with the United States and other countries over its nuclear program. The United States responded by saying it would seek United Nations backing for new sanctions within weeks. The Iranian move drew a furious response from Israel, which ed hardy on sale has said it would regard an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told European diplomats that the sanctions needed to progress quickly. “I believe that what is required right now is tough action from the international community,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “This means not moderate sanctions, or watered-down sanctions. This means crippling sanctions, and these sanctions must be applied right now.” Mr. Netanyahu did not refer specifically to Tehran’s announcement about uranium enrichment, keeping in line with Israel’s policy of not reacting to every statement from Iran. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said scientists at the Natanz nuclear facility south of Tehran began processing uranium to a purity level of 20 percent to provide fuel for a research reactor producing medical isotopes, the state-run Press TV broadcaster said. But Mr. Salehi was also quoted as saying the enrichment did not preclude further negotiations with world powers on a proposal to swap Iran’s uranium for imported fuel rods. Iran says it needs 120 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium to replace dwindling stocks at the Tehran reactor. “The beginning of the enrichment is not tantamount to the end of interaction and negotiations” on the a fuel exchange negotiated by the United Nations, Mr. Salehi said. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is still ready to continue cooperation if the negotiation parties act wisely and end wasting time.” His remarks strengthened speculation that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is apparently seeking to increase pressure on the West to reopen negotiations on providing fuel for the medical reactor on terms more favorable to Tehran. Speaking on Fox News, the United States Defense Secretary, Robert M. Gates, said: “I think it’s going to take some period of time — I would say weeks, not months — to see if we can’t get another U.N. Security Council resolution,” Reuters said, citing the transcript of his interview. Iranian state media, quoted by The Associated Press, said enrichment began on Tuesday after Iranian scientists injected 25 kilograms of 3.5 percent enriched uranium gas into a cascade of centrifuges in a laboratory at Natanz in the presence of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear oversight body of the United Nations. In Vienna, where the agency has its headquarters, a ed hardy underwear loungewear spokesman confirmed that its inspectors were present. But the spokesman, who spoke in return for anonymity under agency rules, said he was not able to confirm Iran’s claims to be enriching uranium beyond its current levels. The level of purity Iran says it is seeking is significantly lower than the 90-percent levels needed for weapons. The Western concern is that enrichment to 20 percent would enable Iran to produce weapons-grade uranium in a comparatively short time, nuclear experts say. But it remains far from clear that Iran has the capacity to enrich fuel to that level. The spokesman for the I.A.E.A. said Iran’s declared nuclear facilities were among the most closely monitored in the world after Canada and Japan. Agency inspectors routinely measure and monitor nuclear materials and processes to ensure that programs under inspection are those that nuclear authorities have declared. The spokesman said the inspectors in Natanz were conducting “routine safeguards” and had not been flown in specifically to scrutinize Iran’s latest claims. In the past, Western experts have expressed concern that, apart from its declared nuclear facilities, Iran is pursuing covert development at undisclosed sites. Those fears deepened last year with the disclosure of an enrichment plant at Fordo, near the city of Qum. Iran kept the plant a state secret until a few days before the United States and other Western powers disclosed its existence. That site has also been monitored by I.A.E.A. inspectors, Iran says. The latest developments are unfolding as Iran prepares to celebrate the anniversary of the Islamic revolution in 1979 — an event that could intensify the cycle of protests and repression since last June’s flawed presidential elections. But it was not clear if Tehran’s display of defiance was designed to shore up its position among Iranians. The decision to pursue further enrichment elicited a sharp reaction in several countries, including the United States. Even in Russia, which along with China has consistently resisted ed hardy women accessories sanctions against Iran, there were indications on Tuesday of mounting concern about the Iranian nuclear program. “We are against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons,” Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, said at a press conference in Moscow, according to Ria Novosti news agency. “Iran claims that it is not seeking to build nuclear weapons but is developing civilian nuclear technology. But its actions, in particular its intention to enrich uranium to 20 percent, have raised doubts in other countries and there is sufficient basis for these doubts.” If Russia does join the other world powers in backing President Obama’s call for tougher United Nations sanctions, that would isolate China, which has said such action could make finding a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis even more difficult. The United States has begun circulating ideas for possible sanctions among its closest allies on the Security Council and is hoping that Iran’s announcement might convince China that Tehran’s real purpose is to create a weapon, and not the civilian use of nuclear energy. But news reports on Tuesday quoted a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman , Ma Zhaoxu, as urging continued “dialogue and negotiations,” refusing to be drawn on the question of sanctions. Iran’s nuclear program is one of the most contentious issues between the West and Tehran, which asserts its right under international law to a peaceful nuclear program and rejects Western suspicions that it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon. The proposal to swap low-enriched uranium for fuel rods was seen in the West as a way of depriving Iran of stockpiles that it could convert into bomb fuel, while providing Tehran with fuel rods that would be very difficult to use in a weapon. Iran was reported last October to have accepted the proposal, but later backed away. Western officials say Iran has rejected the deal, but Tehran accuses the West of ed hardy woman caps failing to respond to its proposals.

Google has turned to the National Security Agency for technical assistance to learn more about the computer network attackers who breached the company’s cybersecurity defenses last year, a person with direct knowledge of sale ed hardy the agreement said Thursday. The collaboration between Google, the world’s largest search engine company, and the federal agency in charge of global electronic surveillance raises both civil liberties issues and new questions about how much Google knew about the electronic thefts it experienced when it stated last month that it might end its business operations in China, where it said the attacks originated. The agreement was first reported on Wednesday evening by The Washington Post. By turning to the N.S.A., which has no formal legal authority to investigate domestic criminal acts, instead of the Department of Homeland Security, which does have such authority, Google is clearly seeking to avoid having its search engine, e-mail and other Web services regulated as part of the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” The United States government has become increasingly concerned about the computer risks confronting energy and water distribution systems and financial and communications networks. Systems designated as critical infrastructure are increasingly being held to tighter regulatory standards. On Jan. 12, Google announced a “new approach to China” on a company Web site, stating that the attacks were “highly sophisticated” and came from China. At the time, it gave few details about the attacks other than to say that a theft of its intellectual property had occurred and that a primary goal of the attackers had been to gain access to the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. In reaching out to the N.S.A., which has extensive abilities to monitor global Internet traffic, the company may have been hoping to gain more certainty about the identity of the attackers. A number of computer security consultants who worked with other companies that experienced attacks similar to those of Google have stated that the surveillance system was controlled from a series of compromised server computers based in Taiwan. It is not clear how Google determined that the attacks originated in China. A Google spokeswoman said the company was declining to comment on the case beyond what it published last month. An N.S.A. spokeswoman said, “N.S.A. is not able to comment on specific relationships we may or may not have with U.S. companies,” but added, the agency worked with “a broad range of commercial partners” to ensure security of information systems. The agency’s responsibility to secure the ed hardy t-shirts government’s computer networks almost certainly was another reason Google turned to it, said a former federal computer security specialist. “This is the other side of N.S.A. — this is the security service that does defensive measures,” said the specialist, James A. Lewis, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s not unusual for people to go to N.S.A. and say ‘please take a look at my code.’ ” The agreement will not permit the agency to have access to information belonging to Google users, but it still reopens long-standing questions about the role of the agency. “Google and N.S.A. are entering into a secret agreement that could impact the privacy of millions of users of Google’s products and services around the world,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based policy group. On Thursday, the organization filed a lawsuit against the N.S.A., calling for the release of information about the agency’s role as it was set out in National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, a classified 2008 order issued by former President George W. Bush dealing with cybersecurity and surveillance. Concerns about the nation’s cybersecurity have greatly increased in the past two years. On Tuesday, Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, began his annual threat testimony before Congress by saying that the threat of a crippling attack on telecommunications and other computer networks was growing, as an increasingly sophisticated group of enemies had “severely threatened” the sometimes fragile systems undergirding the country’s information infrastructure. “Malicious cyberactivity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication,” he told the committee. The relationship that the N.S.A. has struck with Google is known as a cooperative research and development agreement, according to a person who has been briefed on the relationship. These were created as part of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and are essentially a written agreement between a private company and a government agency to work together on a specific project. They are ed hardy woman shoes intended to help accelerate the commercialization of government-developed technology. In addition to the N.S.A., Google has been working with the F.B.I. on the attack inquiry, but the bureau has so far declined to comment publicly or to share information about the intrusions with Congress.