Slashdot Mirror

From what I can tell, all affected models have internal batteries.

The photos in the recall expansion notice appear to show examples of both user-replaceable and internal batteries. What resources did you use to make that determination?

There's no UPSC, it's the US CPSC. HTH, HAND.

A few years ago I read about some class action lawsuit (that I was too late to join) regarding a power strip I'd been using for years.

Do you have one of these?

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2...

(NOTE: Originally sold by APC).

I verified I had one that was recalled but it only had about half the sockets in use due to oversized plugs. It was slightly warm, but not alarmingly so.

I was tempted to keep using it but couldn't justify even a slight risk of fire.

Mine have a relatively long nozzle, but I found them in dumpster so I have no idea if they are sold anywhere.
Looks like they might have been recalled. I'll have to check; https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2...

Here are links to the CPSC and HP websites for the recall

CPSC
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/HP-Expands-Recall-of-Batteries-for-HP-and-Compaq-Notebook-Computers

HP
http://www.hp.com/go/batteryprogram2016

federally mandated recall

The recall notice says clearly that consumers should stop using and power down.

The device related problems are an issue between the end-user and Samsung, not Verizon. Verizon has no business interfering in the legal use of a legally purchased device. To Verizon's network, it is irrelevant what device I would use, and therefore Verizon would be in breach of contract for turning of services I am paying for. Unless of course, Verizon can demonstrate how the use of a Samsung Note 7 device is interfering with the integrity of their network. This is a class action lawsuit coming.

Don't forget that the issue is battery related. So take out the battery, and you have a perfectly functioning computing device.

I don't think that would hold up in this case. The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a full, voluntarily recall on all versions of the Samsung Galaxy Note7 on September 15, 2016. That makes it against Federal law to sell one of these, even as a private party.

This patch is to deal with the 15% of units that have not already been made safe via the recall. By declining to release the patch Verizon has pulled themselves into the liability pool, and when it comes to court (and some of it will, you can bet) they may find that, if no other provider followed their course of action, Samsung "could" walk away clean, leaving Verizon holding the bag for any phones they failed to patch.

Any extended reasonable notice should not be a legal requirement when a possibility of death and a danger to general public safety can be shown to be involved. In fact, delay resulting in serious injury might be addressed in a criminal venue.

I don't think bricking the phone would remove it from recall eligibility, they still have to make good for defective equipment and the phones are cheap enough to be covered by small claims action if no other satisfaction is available. That would be a nightmare from a corporate point of view, anyone anywhere suing for less than it would cost to defend that suit... then they hire another guy two counties over to defend the same thing... rinse, repeat...

One good result of all this is a greater awareness of Fire Containment Bags, great things to have when what is burning exceeds the melting point of the vehicle it is transported in... can't wait till they build that into a regular laptop bag.

Hopefully designers also took note of of what happens when these volatile things get too thin... and compressed. I'm sure the engineers told them but hey, it's got to look great!

That is the correct site, you just have to click links to PDF files and read, if you are able to read.

Here's the thing. I can read. I read documents like this for a living. In this case, I can read the heading "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the notices of proposed rulemaking for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the final rule for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," and search the text of the PDFs (example) and understand that you are not linking to the "correct site."

The problem here is each and every one deals solely with human readable text to be included in recall notices, not an authorization to disable the operational capability of or otherwise deny access to a recalled device owned by a consumer.

While I personally don't have anything against this plan, posting links to irrelevant material and claiming that it authorizes the plan "if you are able to read" is bullshit.

Specifically identify the legal support by document name and page number, at a minimum, or STFU.

US courts have already ruled the opposite. In 2009 and earlier.

Yes, they are. This is something called a safety recall enforced by law. Read.

Yes, they are. This is something called a safety recall enforced by law. Read.

I don't know where you are getting your "facts", but there have been much more than 3 phones catching fire.

As of September 15, 2016, the US CPSC reported 26 reports of burns and 55 reports of property damage, including fires in cars and a garage.

As of October 10, 2016, there have been at least 5 reports of replacement phones catching fire.

I have bought rechargeable batteries for the last 20 years. Not a single one of them has caught fire. In the case of the Galaxy Note 7, there is obviously a single, focused product that has a critical flaw.

Samsung has sold millions of these things. Three of them have caught fire. That makes the odds of a device catching fire less than 1 in 1,000,000. Business Insider says that 17 cars catch fire every hour. Where are the cries for recalling cars?

I'm going to keep a copy of your post for safe keeping. This "what about y" device is constantly being invoked as justification for everything from mass surveillance to red rum so often in so many different contexts it usually makes me cringe/sigh Al Gore style whenever I encounter it.

Boldly inquiring about cries for recalling products that catch on fire takes it to a whole new level.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://q13fox.com/2016/09/30/s...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business...

http://www.techtimes.com/artic...

http://jalopnik.com/5935974/fi...

http://www.autonews.com/articl...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...

http://www.popularmechanics.co...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.streetdirectory.com...

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2...

If you want to hear cries from victims themselves click keywords and enter fire. http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/o...

If we accept as accurate the report from another person in this thread that a study has found that people prefer to drink their coffee at 140F with a standard deviation of 15 degrees as well as your definition of 'too hot'... Tap water at 155F, the uppermost end of the range, will need only one second to cause 3rd degree burns. At 150F, it will take 2 seconds to produce a 3rd degree burn according to the scald chart I looked up. At 140F, it takes 6 seconds. This means that at least half, if not a bit more, of people prefer their coffee 'too hot.'

Also, apparently coffee isn't as good at causing scalds as tap water. Reference: US Consumer Product Safety Commission Publication 5098 - Tap Water Scalds.

As I understand it, the recall effot on the Note 7 has been for the cell service providers to tell their customers to return their phones to the store they bought them from, and then exchange it for a new Note 7 without the problem battery in it. How do they plan on telling ones that have undergone the recall (and thus are safe) from those that haven't, even months later when the recall is "over"?

The problem was when Samsung first announced the recall, they didn't do it through the official recall channels - e.g., The US Consumer Product Safety Commission. Every recall that's "official" is announced there and steps to replace your product are documented there.

So despite the Samsung recall, officially, Samsung has not recalled the Note 7. This means just like the "hoverboard" devices, the FAA has to deal with a device that is known to catch on fire, and there's no recall or other safety plan in effect, so the FAA is forced to create one. And just like hoverboards (which are not recalled, either) the only option the FAA has is to ban it to prevent the risk of an in-flight fire.

Now, Samsung is trying to fix this and generate an official recall notice with the government, but as it stands right now, the Note 7 is NOT being recalled as far as anyone in government is concerned.

If you wonder why the recall is a bit haphazard for Samsung, that's also the reason - there's no official notice.

OK, rant over... gotta go mow the stupid lawn now. Unless there is some Federal law against that I don't know about.

Not so fast, citizen. Have you read and complied with the relevant regulations, citizen? The EPA is only concerned with what's best for all of us, citizen. You do want to be a good citizen, don't you, citizen? Now pick up that can.

To anyone who scoffs at this: ask yourself: "Why should the federal government be concerned with how I mow my lawn that I paid for and continue to pay taxes for?"

...another idiot that dropped his drone onto a kid at a movie theater. ...

No argument about being vigilant and careful. As any human endeavor flying involves a certain risk.

But we should not forget that say toy-related emergency treated injuries of children in the USA are in hundreds of thousands each year http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Res...

But no one speaks about introducing the 30 miles no-Toy Musical Instruments zone around a city, or a registration of all the Inflatable Toys.

Let alone the 2D traffic accidents, tap hot water and barbecue burns, etc. which are massive, and where something could be done to reduce the tragic numbers.

fyi twice as many drown in a year. No one wants to ban mr bucket, but then mr bucket can't stop THEM from imposing their will upon you.

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroo...

Apparently 15 Americans are crushed to death moving their furniture every year! BAN THE COUCH!

The source of that information is really interesting. Almost all (84%) people killed by furniture are under 8, killed when a TV (60%) or chest/bureau falls on them.

There are zero fatalities in the 10-year study involving people between 9-30 years old. I'm not sure what protects this age group from malicious TVs, unless the broadcasters somehow allow the TVs to distinguish members of the target demographic. It does seem that, if you're over 30, you should put on a college student costume before trying to move or walk near your TV.

The study covers 2000-2010, including the tail end of massive CRTs. I expect the statistics will be very different for 2010-2020.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact L G Sourcing to receive free replacement burners and, depending on the model of the grill owned, a free replacement lid.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (888) 840-9590 anytime

Just curious, but: If you liked the grill, and did the homework, why didn't you just -- you know -- fix it? For free, even?

Buckyballs have to be the most dangerous thing known to man (recently) as they are both tasty and highly magnetic. It is important that we recall them all and make one giant cube that will attract planes flying over the area.

Warning, do not use as cake decoration.

More dangerous than lawn darts?

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/122377/5053.pdf

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012...

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroo...

He was charged for selling agricultural fireworks (to scare away pests) on ebay. Turns out that the manufacturer was making them too powerful and/or not following regulations that limit their sale to farmers, ranchers, and growers.

He was also the only person prosecuted over the incident, despite the same fireworks being sold all over, including Cabelas. (Ken Shearer is mentioned in the CPSC press release, but his case is unrelated.)

... most homes have a gas generator just for this, (I have 2 in my garage, no fun finding out one won't start when you need it)

In case you don't know, be sure not to run your generator(s) in your garage.

Clarity please. Does the submitter mean competition? Legal challenges to the product? Logistical challenges with the products?

It's clear submitter meant https://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2014/Nest-Labs-Recalls-to-Repair-Nest-Protect-Smoke-CO-Alarms/.

Consumer Product Safety Commission recalls are reasonably considered a product challenge.

Don't forget snow globes! (There actually was a recall over this - http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2009/Hallmark-Recalls-Jumbo-Snow-Globes-Due-to-Fire-Hazard/)

It honestly depends on a handful of things. It ends up not being such a rosy deal almost every time.

Saying it's low margin so you have it elsewhere denies a handful of realities- one of which is that you have to watch those offshored fabricators like a hawk or you end up with an Aquadots/Bindeez disaster wherein they substituted one chemically similar plasticizer (1,5-pentanediol) that was intrinsically safe for the other (1,4-butanediol) which metabolizes into gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, the infamous date-rape drug in the gut- all to save a bit of THEIR margins.

In doing so, you end up eating up all those vaunted margins you speak of making sure they don't screw you like that- or you play a game of Russian Roulette wherein the gun's got 2 bullets loaded in the cylinder, just waiting for one of them to go off (at which point you lose even MORE money than you could've EVER have saved by doing it the way you did...)

I know of at least one manufacturer that moved their stuff stateside again precisely because of what I just mentioned. Quality went up, costs actually went down. Just by making it stateside.

Any time I see someone say the stuff you just did- I see some fool that either doesn't have a clue about what they're talking to or someone that's following the almighty dollar gambling on themselves being the "lucky ones" just once.

If you run around without looking up, it isn't that dangerous. The worst you could get is a cut on your head.

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/1997/Following-Recent-Injury-CPSC-Reissues-Warning-Lawn-Darts-Are-Banned-and-Should-Be-Destroyed/

I don't know the OPs original intent but...

People watch the news and hype and then react on it. What they are reacting on may be a real threat but there are many other threats out there that do not generate as much hype and they blow them off because of that.

More kids are injured and killed every year from a CRT television falling on then from being shot by a gun. Watch the "news" and listen to politicians jumping on the gun hype on television and you would never know that.
http://www.mommyish.com/2012/12/14/falling-televisions-dangerous-risk-to-child-safety/
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2013/The-Tipping-Point-Highest-Number-of-TV-and-Furniture-Tip-Over-Deaths-Recorded-By-CPSC-in-2011/

Let me start by saying that I believe in reasonable limits and a exercising reasonable responsibility. Companies and industries that knowingly endanger people, don't provide reasonable warning (or hide the dangers), and don't take reasonable precautions in order to reasonably mitigate these dangers should be severely punished. I don't really object to some guy shining a laser at planes being charged with reckless endangerment, or even with manslaughter if it resulted in deaths.

However, that doesn't change the fact that we've turned into culture that is obsessed with laying blame on someone and making excessive limitations for questionable or extremely limited benefit.

I'm not heartless, but we have to face the fact that sometimes shit happens, and isn't always someone's fault. I don't have kids, but yet I'm still aware of their uncanny knack for getting into some weird stuff and do a lot of things that can get themselves hurt. It's their nature, and you try to do the best you can do but sometimes it's going to turn out bad. It's tragic, but inevitable. It isn't necessarily the fault of Bucky Balls, Clorox, the parents, or Planter's. Sometimes these things happen. It's no reason to go crazy with litigation and regulation.

Also, for perspective...

1 death and 33 emergency room surgeries due to swallowing magnets for children
40 U.S. Deaths a year, and 360 injuries from being struck by lightning
An average of about 87 babies and toddlers a year drowned in bathtubs between 2006 and 20010
160 Americans die from Peanuts (I didn't find a stat on children specifically)
2,136 Children were killed in Automobile accidents in the year 2003
2,811 Children were killed by gun violence in 2009

There are dangers out there, I'm not denying it. However, I'm not sure we prioritize them properly, and we're certainly too unwilling to admit that just being alive carries a certain amount of risk.

Either that, or we should ban magnets, peanuts, transportation, bathtubs and lightning, and of course lasers...

Let me start by saying that I believe in reasonable limits and a exercising reasonable responsibility. Companies and industries that knowingly endanger people, don't provide reasonable warning (or hide the dangers), and don't take reasonable precautions in order to reasonably mitigate these dangers should be severely punished. I don't really object to some guy shining a laser at planes being charged with reckless endangerment, or even with manslaughter if it resulted in deaths.

However, that doesn't change the fact that we've turned into culture that is obsessed with laying blame on someone and making excessive limitations for questionable or extremely limited benefit.

I'm not heartless, but we have to face the fact that sometimes shit happens, and isn't always someone's fault. I don't have kids, but yet I'm still aware of their uncanny knack for getting into some weird stuff and do a lot of things that can get themselves hurt. It's their nature, and you try to do the best you can do but sometimes it's going to turn out bad. It's tragic, but inevitable. It isn't necessarily the fault of Bucky Balls, Clorox, the parents, or Planter's. Sometimes these things happen. It's no reason to go crazy with litigation and regulation.

Also, for perspective...

1 death and 33 emergency room surgeries due to swallowing magnets for children
40 U.S. Deaths a year, and 360 injuries from being struck by lightning
An average of about 87 babies and toddlers a year drowned in bathtubs between 2006 and 20010
160 Americans die from Peanuts (I didn't find a stat on children specifically)
2,136 Children were killed in Automobile accidents in the year 2003
2,811 Children were killed by gun violence in 2009

There are dangers out there, I'm not denying it. However, I'm not sure we prioritize them properly, and we're certainly too unwilling to admit that just being alive carries a certain amount of risk.

Either that, or we should ban magnets, peanuts, transportation, bathtubs and lightning, and of course lasers...

18,000 kids are injured each year from a TV falling onto them.

13,800 actually.

But there's a big difference between injured and killed.

There were 294 child deaths from accidents with TVs from 2000-2011. About 25 per year.
http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/135118/tipover2012.pdf

For firearms, there's 138 children killed in accidents. 3,345 children killed in homicides and 1,665 suicides.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

If you think that the fact that some number of kids are injured/killed by falling TVs means it's OK to have firearms around children, then you are beyond reasonable thought.

The market this product as a toy for children.

Wrong tense. They used to market this product as a toy for children. That recall you mentioned in your post? Guess what that was for: "The high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Ages 13+' and do not meet the mandatory toy standard ... which requires that such powerful magnets are not sold for children under 14." Oh, and the recall itself mentions that this was in the past: "Since March 2010, Buckyballs® high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Keep Away From All Children' and are not being recalled."

responding to many, many consumer complaints about a products. Many children requiring surgery.
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml12/12234.pdf

Byuckyballs says:
"Now, after more than two years, they're saying our extensive measures aren't enough and we should be put out of business.
I can't find any doc the confirms that on cpsc.gov

And the company keeps using the logical fallacy we sold lots, so protect us; which has nothing to do with the safety concern.
"We are fighting the CPSC action because we believe responsible adults should have the right to choose to purchase adult products like ours."
History shows you are wrong.

"We are fighting the CPSC action because we have been betrayed by a government organization that switched overnight from being an ally, helpful in ensuring our products would be marketed correctly, to being an enemy trying to shut us down."
Nice scared words. The steps you took did not work. You refused to take more, the CPSC took the next logical step.

Save the righteous indignation: the headline is bullshit. Nothing is banned. This is a simple recall of the magnets sold prior to 2010 when the package listed the wrong allowable age (13 instead of 14). The problem was solved by dropping the age and stating simply "Keep Away From Children." 'geekoid' provided the following link deep into the comments. I reproduce it here to prevent a rash of apoplectic strokes and unwarrented rightwing crowing: http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml10/10251.html [cpsc.gov]

Actually, your link is from 2 years ago. The correct current link is here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an effort to prevent children from suffering further harm, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff filed an administrative complaint today against Maxfield & Oberton Holdings LLC, of New York, N.Y., alleging that Buckyballs and Buckycubes contain a defect in the design, packaging, warnings, and instructions, which pose a substantial risk of injury to the public. The Commission voted 3-1 to approve the filing of the complaint, which seeks, among other things, an order that the firm stops selling Buckyballs and Buckycubes, notify the public of the defect, and offer consumers a full refund.

So no, this is not a labeling issue. They already corrected the labeling issue. This is about stopping all sales of Buckyballs. Headline is correct. Posting to undo my upmod of your comment because it turns out you are wrong.

That link you posted is over a year old, and does not accurately reflect the situation today. Here is yesterday's announcement of the lawsuit CPSC has filed, and the actual text of the complaint(PDF).

Basically, the Buckyballs labeling was changed to indicate 14+ less than a month after being notified by the CPSC that they needed to do so (28-30 in PDF). Since then the CPSC has decided that no warnings, packaging or other changes can be effective at preventing kids from ingesting them (35-40,46-48), and therefore are seeking a complete stop-sale and full recall of all Buckyballs regardless of how they were labeled or are labeled in the future.

This is as bad as Zucker is describing it.

That link you posted is over a year old, and does not accurately reflect the situation today. Here is yesterday's announcement of the lawsuit CPSC has filed, and the actual text of the complaint(PDF).

Basically, the Buckyballs labeling was changed to indicate 14+ less than a month after being notified by the CPSC that they needed to do so (28-30 in PDF). Since then the CPSC has decided that no warnings, packaging or other changes can be effective at preventing kids from ingesting them (35-40,46-48), and therefore are seeking a complete stop-sale and full recall of all Buckyballs regardless of how they were labeled or are labeled in the future.

This is as bad as Zucker is describing it.

Sorry, it's you who didn't read the facts here. This administrative action is against _all_ buckyballs, not just the old 13+ ones (which were fixed in 2010)

You're looking at 2 year old actions and assuming they relate to today's one, but they're only tangentially related.

Here's the press release about the current action: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.html
You'll note that in this release they point out that in both the previous actions, the company was cooperative. That is also pointed out in the actual complaint here: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.pdf

The founder's bizzarre political allegations aside, they are not being misleading about the CPSC complaint.

Sorry, it's you who didn't read the facts here. This administrative action is against _all_ buckyballs, not just the old 13+ ones (which were fixed in 2010)

You're looking at 2 year old actions and assuming they relate to today's one, but they're only tangentially related.

Here's the press release about the current action: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.html
You'll note that in this release they point out that in both the previous actions, the company was cooperative. That is also pointed out in the actual complaint here: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.pdf

The founder's bizzarre political allegations aside, they are not being misleading about the CPSC complaint.

To clear up some confusion I found the source on CPSC's own site. It's slightly more informational than the Reuters summary... But I'm still confused.

I bought tiny fridge magnets from The Container Store that are actually tiny neodymium cubes, are they banned also? Are they exempt because they're not toys?

How about just plain neodymium magnets direct from suppliers? Are they banned also or are they exempt because they're not labeled as toys?

How about a hobby brushless motor kit that comes with neodymium magnets? Is that banned also or is that exempt because even though it's a toy the magnets are supplied with the purpose of installing them in the motor?

So many unanswered questions... I think it would be easier to require all kids to wear muzzles to keep their mouth closed at all times. It would solve all the issues where kids choke on things or eat poisonous/dangerous materials, and has added benefit of muffling their annoying whiny cries.

It would be an overreaction is it was true.

" This recall involves the Buckyballs® high powered magnets sets labeled "Ages 13+""
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml10/10251.html

It's a labeling issue, one the company has known about for years, they just didn't change it.

Better yet, a ban on idiots who don't read the facts of the case? also a ban on people who post these damn articles without any real facts in them.

This is ridiculous, and when a headline is ridiculous you should follow it to the source. Gather some fact.
The article is nothing but a set up baseless attack on Obama.
What has happened is the CPSC told the company that there are reports of injuries. Items like these should be marketed for "14 or older". The company labeled it 13+. The company could have simply change the labels on the new one being produced when the first found out, in 2009. The didn't in 2010, they didn't in 2011. The "Ban" is only on the ones labels 13+

For some reason, the company is stirring this into a much larger issue then it is,. Sine the company attacks Obama, I suspect Zucker did it intentionally. Why else wouldn't you change your label?

" This recall involves the Buckyballs® high powered magnets sets labeled "Ages 13+""

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml10/10251.html

Then get the fuck out, you short sighted small thinking son of a bitch.

Even better, actually READ THE FACTS OF THE CASE. That article is screwed to twist this whole thing into an attack against Obama.
It's a labeling issue.
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml10/10251.html

You know what I hate? people like you that take any headline seriously with out bothering to read up. Secondly I hate articles that talk about shit like this and omit key facts as an excuse to push a political agenda.
The fact of the matter, you poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain, is that it's a labeling issue. That Is All. Change the label,. and they are good to go. Something the company could have done a YEAR AGO and not have had the recall.

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml10/10251.html

And this has nothing to do with choking.

It's simply a labeling issue:
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml10/10251.html

293 Americans were killed by falling furniture in the United States between 2000 and 2010. Since 9/11, 238 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks.

We get it. You're a bigot and you hate Muslims. Call me when you start a war on furniture.

+1 yes ER doctors see quite a few severe injuries from these http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/REPORTS/2011rpt.pdf

Where does it say in the constitution that congress is responsible for being a consumer or even privacy watchdog? Isn't that the responsibility of the FTC Bereau of Consumer Protection, CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), the newly created Department of Consumer Protection or the CPSC (Consumer Protection Safety Commission)? See below for links.. these are separate organizations of government.

I think the congressional hearings are far, far too used. I watch as ignorant senators call up Goldman Sachs or Toyota and grill them on practices and safety. Meanwhile, they can't pass a budget for the bloated, ignorant government to run on. Senators act like royalty, yet they're the ones trading on insider information and often the ones who caused the problem with restrictive laws or regulations in the first place.

The gut instinct of all of us, when we see an article like this,l is to say, "My privacy is important!" and to be a little thankful for the government to be the oversight when we feel powerless, *yet* its the government who is tapping out phones, e-mails and electronic communication illegally. Am I the only one who recognizes how bad things have become??!

-- Ragetech

Links:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm - FTC
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/ - CFPB
http://www.ct.gov/DCP/site/default.asp - Department of Consumer Protection
http://www.cpsc.gov/ - CPSC

Which would be about the time that magnets were no longer allowed in toys for small children, and Magnetix (toys for children that included magnets) were recalled and relabeled for age 6+. (This was an extension of the recall from 2006) Mattel then recalled their toys with magnets in the fall of 2007. ... etc.

Are we still having problems with this 5 years later?

Are we going to need to havea story on here next week that small items are a choking hazard and shouldn't be given to children under 3?