Slashdot Mirror
Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy
jeffy124 writes: "Beginning Feb 15, a new Vermont consumer protection law takes effect requiring companies doing business with people in VT to require opt-in before they can sell/share that customer's personal information. Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers."
Ya, all sorts of horrible things happen to me when companies can't sell my personal information. :)
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
What kind of legal actions are available for consumers who have been targeted by corporations who choose to violate opt-in laws? Does this apply to only coporations within state?
:)
Yes, maybe I should do my research, but I'm busy doing research for other things. Maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time here too!
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
oddly i am in a whole bunch of "opt-in" solicitation services who send me bungloads of email everyday. i dont recall opting in fFor a single one of them, but that sure hasn't stopped them.
I consider this a point for all the citizens in Vermont. This makes it just a little harder to get personal information from businesses. Granted the information is still out there, but this is a step in the right direction.
Can't they do some broad consumer review asking how we, the consumers, feel about being hurt by this? That way we can all say, "Yes it hurts; but getting a little dutch rub from Vermont law is preferable to being boiled in oil by corparate if(screw customer=makemoney) then exec(screw customer) policy . . ."
I guess States don't have the right to protect their citizens' privacy? Or is that something the federal government bears full responsibility for?
It'll hurt consumers? Man. The complaint is so bogus as to be laughable and embarassing. So what if I miss out on another FANTABULOUS offer for the AMAZING X-10 CAMERA!?!
The breathtaking thing is that the selling of a person's PERSONAL information was, according to standard, opt-out prior to this. As if anybody would choose to receive more ads in their day-to-day life, when asked face-to-face.
I can't wait until this lawsuit is taken out back and beaten to a pulp. If we're lucky the issue will get some media coverage, and public opinion will be strong enough to squish out unwanted, intrusive advertising in more states than one.
Kudos to whoever's writing the laws in Vermont. They're choosing for once to benefit the public interest, rather than the typical bend-over for businesses.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Is that people who run/work/clean businesses are also consumers. It's very likely that they understand mass marketing/solicitation benefits have on their companies, and as such, are unlikely to mind it too much.
this might be a silly point. but does this law actually carry any real weight? see, you technically Opt-In fFor your phone number and address to be listed in the phone book. that is what most people think of when you think of 'personal info'.
beyond that, your email address is tracked at any site you login to. you have again opted in. you very commonly sign away any other information which a company might way. such as with a product registration (usually optional), or a 'shopping club' at the grocery store.
dont get me wrong. sounds like a good bill to pass. but does it actually *DO* anything?
Sure it'll raise the cost of bulk emails..
Getting together a list of people that actually want to get something takes time, and a little effort.
Just like putting an envelope in the mail raises the cost of sending junk mail that way.
Why on earth should the ISPs and users downloading more and more spam ever day have to shoulder the cost of businesses 'targetting' them, trying to sell stuff that's largely not wanted anyway, and only interferes with trying to enjoy one's email quietly.
I have two email accounts unusable now because of spam accumulation over the years from harvesters.
That cost to me is rather great. And I don't make money like corporations.. I think it's about time they shouldered the cost for once, instead of trying to sue because they don't have it as easy as they used to, and they're now actually told they can only sell to people that want to go and get their product. Radical idea that.. Who'd ever have thought that people would actually have the brains to figure out they want to buy something and actually go looking, instead of you jamming their email box every day with cajoles and other annoyances.
Malk
"Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers."
Ah yes, the industry lobbies once again coming to the rescue of the all important and most loved consumer. If they are out to protect the consumer why are they trade groups? If my company was a member of this trade group that seems dedicated to the cause of protecting the consumer I'd withdraw my membership and ask for my money back!
This whole opt-out deal sounds totally reasonable and something the people really want. Nice going Vermont!
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
As a consumer, the corps can rest assured that I do indeed want to be "hurt" by a law that says I don't have to go to all the trouble of sending in opt-out mail to companies that think the details of my personal life are their property to do with as they please. Fsck those fscking fsckers.
Recently, my phone company sent out a mailer describing how to opt out of their planned data sharing scheme. The long and short was that I could dial an 800 number, but that information was so buried in fine-print legalese that I really doubt that many people who otherwise would have opted out actually did. Shenanigans like that are precisely what Vermont is addressing with this law. Let's all think a good thought for Vermont's AG staff on this one.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again:
why is it that when the corps want to make money off of our data that "information wants to be free" -- but when the public wants to trade/make money off of their data that we need stringent IP protections??
And don't tell me that it's because there is a cottage industry bult around violating our privacy, but no cottage industry built around unauthorized copying. If the legal status of the two kinds of info were reversed, so would the industries attached to them.
I'm waiting for one of these data mining companies to patent "their" info and stick the BSA on anyone who copies it without their permission.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Raises Costs: Sounds like they view easy profits as an entitlement, and expect the state to pass corporate welfare legislation rather than consumer protection legislation.
Hurts Consumers: Mebe we should ask the consumers about this instead? (Why the heck do they suppose the legislature passed the law in the first place?)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Here's something you can do to fight snail mail spam in your state. When you receive a piece of junk mail, open it and take out the pre-paid postage envelope. Now open a second piece of junk mail and take it's contents and stuff it into the first pre-paid envelope. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat with every piece of junk mail you get. Then take them and mail them back to the fuckers who sent them.
:-)
Think about it, they are paying twice to get 0 results.
When I got my phone connected, they mis-spelt my last name. I have never seen my last name spelt like that ANYWHERE else. /var/log/messages
// my place of work) were related?
I am in charge of our mail server at work (Slackware 8 beast running sendmail, squid, mysql, imap, etc...). Recently I did the following search:
grep unknown
I was surprised to see my an error message regarding an unknown user, which consisted of my first initial, and last name - MIS-SPELT exactly as Telstra had, @mycompany.com.au. So someone obviously got my first & last names from Telstra. They informed my that 'anyone' can get this from the phone book or http://www.whitepages.com.au. Fair enough. But how did they link it to my place of work? Telstra swear that they don't have any record of where I (or anyone else) work. So is this Australia Post, ASIO, or what? I make a point of NOT telling people where I work, as I understand that if this information gets into the wrong hands, people can make life 'difficult' for you.
Any thought on how these 2 (Telstra's records of my name
We have this in Europe for some time now.
As a consumer I like it : no more (supposedly) unsolicited mail.
All european websites have to have the little box that says : please click here IF YOU WANT us to send you mail.
Usually a seperate box also for 'May we sell your address to other parties too'
This is covered in the UK for years with the DP act.
Also we can 'opt out' of junk mail (the physical stuff) and junk phone calls (buy your windows from us etc) by signing up with a couple of lists.
Its great I never get any junk mail, well Ok very rarely, and I never get cold called on the phone to buy stuff.
Saves me time, saves the postman's back
all in all about time you guys in the 'state got it.
in the case of corporations, who aren't people but merely abstractions. they can be censored, without violating anyone's rights.
Also, the issue isn't censorship but ownership and rights of ownership -- if you read my previous post. Most of us slashdotters don't think there should be no IP laws. Just more of a balance. I'm trying to point out the scales are tipped too far.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
the status of ownership and what rights that gives the user. When I copy -- or even buy -- digital data belonging to the RIAA, I still don't own it. I have very few rights -- which are being chipped away. Certainly no right to amalgamate CD's of the stuff, index the data thereon, and sell it as my own. Hell, I may not even be able to make a backup copy.
But my personal data becomes the property of anyone who can get it. Wether by scouring the web, or paying for it, or just spying on me. I have absolutely no control over it. That's the double standard.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers.
I'm a bar owner and I've decided the sue the state because not serving beer to juniors makes them unhappy and is hurting my profits.
Over hear in the land of the unfree we already have these protections. We also have some other consumer protections that might be worth having
1) They can't sell your data unless you let them (two whole tick boxes)
2) The data isn't considered a company asset when the
And as for hurting consumers.... bollocks, totally and utter. Reducing SPAM, being in control of your own information. Hell this _is_ what consumers want.
Go Vermont, full credit to some law makers who aren't just in the pockets of big business.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Can you imagine what life would be like if my local grocery stores had to sell me their products? I'd have to go to the store, know what products I needed, wait in line with my neighbors and then have to actually sign a credit card receipt. What a nightmare!
Fortunately, all the local stores automatically deliver the products I don't realize I need and deduct the cost from my checking account. As if I'd actually want to know how much they're taking! That would totally cut into time I'd much rather spend exploring all the special offers I've been getting in my email.
The population of the whole state is 575,000 people, about the same as Nashville Tenn. With this and other pain in the a$$ laws many businesses will decide the tiny population is not worth the trouble. Any regulation has a cost, that cost is not going to be paid out of corporate profits it will be paid by consumers
Free cell phone tracking
Well, not directly at least. This isn't mandating opt-in for spammers or anything like that. They're talking about sharing personal information. While this may include email addresses, it's MUCH more than that - addresses, buying habits, banking practices, assets, etc. Companies do this all the time, and set "opt-out" policies that generously allow you to tell them to quit sharing whenever you become aware of it, but by then the damage is usually done.
I'm a bit dubious of this case, because it wasn't legislated, a beaureacrat took it upon himself to re-interpret an existing law to say this, so the suit may well have a good point in this particular case. However, it's a great idea, a lot of states have legislation like that pending, and I am urging everyone to do something about this. See if your state has a bill like this pending - if it does, write your representatives and tell them you support it. If not, write them and encourage them to introduce one.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I work for a Worldwide Telecommunications business, and they sell all of thier lists... The interesting part is when your national, and this law applies only to Virginia we will have to opt-out everyone only in Virginia. So that makes it a tad more difficult.. Considering half the time the state information we have for the customer is old, or out of date, or deliberatly inaccurate. despite the extra work this will generate however I think it is a good idea. Personally I jsut wish it was the whole US instead of just Virginia.
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
Wow, it amazes me that the companies will publicly go to court to try to force themselves on people.
I only recently learned that my bank was selling my personal information. When I tried to opt-out, I discovered that they have a difficult procedure to do so. Also, I have three accounts, and they expect me to opt-out of each one separately, even though it is the same information.
I would boycott any company that goes to court against opt-in.
Notice the Sybase ad next to the Computerworld article. Will that sell Sybase products, or damage Sybase by annoying potential customers? The overall reality is that companies are often self-destructive in the way they interact with people.
--
Links to respected news sources show that U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
We have a grocery chain where I used to live that did the exact same thing. I boycotted them for it, and made a point to explain to the management why. Probably didn't do any good, but if enough people did...
Think about it, this is really something you should be angry about. That lady in front of you didn't just save $4.63 out of thin air - YOU subsidised her "savings" as a penalty for refusing to be a good sheepling. Why would you even do business with a company that treated you like that? If you're going to pay extra anyway, why not pay extra to another store?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Lawyer: "Excuse me, ma'am, but have you ever received spam before?" Woman: "Yes...I have to delete hundreds of messages a day!" Lawyer: "She's biased! Throw her out!"
No comment.
We in Norway have had this for quite some time, and it works well. Apart from your typical "MAKE $$$$ FAST" and "INCREASE YOUR LENGTH WITH 200%" scams from somelameass@hotmail.com, it works well against (half-)serious companies stuffing your email. Threatening them with fines and imprisonment for up to six months (of course there's a world of difference between the average punishment and the maximum sentence) gets most people thinking...
Kjella
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Much as I like this sort of law, I wonder if it will pass Constitutional tests sure to be launched by the various industry groups. It could be seen as affecting Interstate Commerce, which would be in violation of the Interstate commerce clause.
that's neoliberalism for you. don't care about your peers.
Well, as far as the loaded "don't care" idea, I'm not going to comment. But what you're referring to is Libertarianism, not liberalism / leftism. Liberals generally want the government to interfere with companies; Libertarians don't, as they want the government to have the smallest role possible.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
If you guys could somehow create a tropical climate, I'd move up there in a second.
I don't have any ideas on how to, but maybe it could involve a giant bubble over the state, and a few million heaters...
Here in NYC we don't have a major billboard problem, but they do exist, and they are annoying. Worst one I've seen is when you're driving into Manhattan from Queens, and a giant billboard says "Welcome to the City of Heroes". Thank you, Perry Ellis. Not only are you using a national tragedy to try and hawk your label, but you're implying that Brooklyn and Queens aren't part of the city; though of course, that's where most of the rescue workers live. Wow, that's off-topic. But I have to vent somewhere.
He probably was referring to neoliberal in the European sense, which is actually the opposite of what we in the US mean by the term "liberal".
After VT passed the same sex marriage law recognition thing, there were people opposing it and putting big signs on their lawns reading:
TAKE VERMONT BACK
The folks who supported the decision wouldn't be out done, and started putting signs up which read
TAKE VERMONT FORWARD
I dunno what view this guy was supporting, probably a comment on the whole thing, he had a bumper sticker which read
TAKE VERMONT FROM BEHIND
Maybe the new slogan for this political move could be:
TAKE VERMONT WITH PERMISSION
Krispy Cream is people
I'd sure like to know exactly who it is that is fighting Vermont's new privacy rules. I just want to identify the enemy.
If I read it correctly, the businesses affected are those regulated by Vermont's Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration, and there are five "industry trade groups" fighting it.
The American Council of Life Insurers was identified as one of the groups. Unfortunately, the page on their site that lists the member companies isn't working (may be slashdotted).
The article also quotes a spokesman from Citigroup, Inc., which consists of Citibank, Travelers, Smith Barney, Primerica, Citigroup Private Bank, Diners Club International, Banamex, Citi Insurance, Citi Financial, Citi Capital, Citigroup Corporate & Investment Bank, Citiroup Asset Management and Citi Mortgage.
Anybody know who the rest are?
TyZone
What if people took all the polititians email addresses from their web sites and put them in to every "win big" and other sites that you know sell and spam/abuse the information. If the lawmakers offices are continually flooded with spam and junk mail maybe then they would concider it worth stopping.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
If anything, the lawsuit is what's going to raise costs for everyone.
Internet users all over the world should file a class action suit against The DMA, all email marketers, spammers and everyone else who treats online privacy as an extension of their marketing departments.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
if there are nay job openings up there for me...
Best Slashdot Co
Not Virginia. Vermont is the home of damnyankees while Virginia is the home of True Southern Gentlemen.
Best Slashdot Co
I know Senator Wellstone is a big proponent of this opt-in at the federal level.
h tm l
But I recently heard that some of our reps are looking at passing a similar law at the state level.
This was the only thing I could find discussing it at this time...
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/1201637.
I heard some of the comments made with regards to the GLB act. They lobbied to have it worded the way it was, specifically to make it harder for the consumer to opt-out of data sharing. The more difficult it was, the less likely consumers would act.
So I say do the same with opt-in. The more difficult it is, the less likely it is that I'll get 4 phone calls on Saturday morning asking to sell me crap.
"Information wants to be free" in the same sense that "water wants to flow downhill".
And, yes, IP laws are every bit as environmentally damaging and profitable for a few as hydroelectric dams.
--
E_NOSIG
Most people (myself included) tend to opt-out of everything whever the opportunity is given out of principle. We're all so sick of all the advertisements we get sent to us that we'll opt out of everything to try to minimize it, even though we might be a little interested in, say, what WinAmp may be up to lately.
I think that, once people are done basking in the freedom of having little to no junk mail, some people may begin to opt in to one or two things here and there. And then the people who send out these ads can be confident that the recipients actually want it.
A friend of mine works for the USPS, and she turned me on to it. It helps pay her salary, plus those business reply envelopes are expensive. She said the key was to get enough crap in the envelope that it weighed over an ounce.
As a bonus, I made little flyers on bright paper: "This complete waste of your time and money was brought to you by [name, address] who would like to be removed from your mailing lists." I'd wrap a flyer around an ounce or so of ripped up paper and stuff that in the envelope.
I viewed it as a lark, just a fun thing to do when I got home every day. But you know, after 6 months of it, my junk mail dropped dramatically. From 3 or 5 pieces a day to just 1 or 2 a week. In short, I'd strongly recommend this to anyone plagued by direct mail.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
I can understand that to an extent. I almost threw out some of those "privacy notices" and I was looking for them! The companies sure didn't want to draw any attention to the possibility of opting out. I had to do phone calls, and postal mail, and sometimes I had to do it once for each account with the same company, and all in all it was a major hassle.
But still, I would have thought that more like 10% would have opted out. Maybe they were too busy sorting through junk mail and spam...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Just like Microsoft had the best of Joe and Jane Doe inmind when it used monopolistic bullying to get their OS installed to every computer. Or how the oil companies (with president Bush as a spokes person)have the best of the consumers in mind when they dumped the Kioto agreement.
How nice..
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
When I was in college (more years ago than I care to mention), those "Public Interest Research Groups" used an opt-out for funding. Yep... CalPIRG and MoPIRG got my money automatically from the university (UCSC and Wash. U, respectively) unless I explicitly opted out.
So much for the "Public Interest".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
It's not just the UK. The Data Protection Act is merely the UKs implementation of the EU Privacy Guidelines. You will find similar laws in all member states.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Europe has fairly strong privacy laws.
Canada has passed a privacy law (applies to Federal Agencies now, will apply to everyone by (I think) end of 2002).
I am more familiar with the gist of Canada's law, which goes:
Must tell you what they are going to do with the information when they ask for it;
Must get explicit permission from you to do anything other than what they said the first time;
Automatically applies to any information given to a 3rd party or info which crosses a provincial or federal boundary.
A single consumer complaint automatically triggers an investigation;
It is backed by some pretty stiff penalties; huge fines and provisions to jail company directors.
It is a crime to even ASK for a Social Insurance Number (ie Social Security #) unless authorized by legislation (Bank, Gov't Agency, Employer). You can refuse-I know one person who has never given the number out, even on Credit Card Applications, and yes, he gets his cards.
I don't know about Maine, but recently the EU granted Canada's law to be sufficently protective of consumer's rights that Canada & Canadian Firms are "trusted" entities with regard to European Privacy Laws.
Huh? Apart from the extortion part, I don't get your point.
I mean, in any major city, there's lots of people who want to consume drugs, gamble, and fuck. And when they want those things, they opt in - they go to the speakeasy, dealer, card table, play the numbers game, or whorehouse. For the most part, Lefty the Torch is providing things people want.
Telemarketers and spammers, on the other hand...
I'm seriously considering copyrighting my identity. And while I'm at it I think I'll encrypt it as well.
Thus, if anybody uses it without my explicit permission in any context I get to sue them using copyright laws.
And if they try to hack my identity I can use the DCMA on them..
Take that...
Caution: Contents under pressure
And that's exactly what companies might do. Instead of adapting systems to meet the state's rules, they are warning that Vermont residents may be excluded en masse from the kinds of offers and information that data sharing allows.
:). That's one of the funniest things I have ever read!
Ooooo, I bet they're trembling in their boots in Vermont! Who wants to miss outon all those special offers?
These people (marketers) need to get out more. They think threatening NOT to send stuff to people is... well.. a threat (giggle, chortle, snort!
Edith Keeler Must Die
I used to help keeping the cost of stamp down. I received tons of junk mails everyday, with the reply envelop that says "no stamp needed if mailed in the US". So, I inserted a couple of junk papers (yeah, from other junk mailers, of course, and with my name/code/bar code, etc removed). On top of that, I added in some hummingbird poo from my backyard, or some crashed snails/slug, or just some glueish thing (But don't put those from when you blow your nose, just in case they do DNA matching :).
I'm having a hard time imagining how those people react tothat, when they open the envelop to process it, especially when it's printed on the envelop to process it immediately and it is urgent.
But I stop doing this after all this 911 anthrax scare. It was fun though.
Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy
I read this and thought "What do the Marines care what Vermont does?"
By contrast, Verizon recently decided to spam everybody and give them an opt-OUT. Let me tell you what it took to opt out (assuming it even worked!)
AAAUUUUGGGGHHHH!
I may have got some details wrong but I'm not making this up- it was that bad. THANK YOU, Vermont, state I live in, for doing something to control these freaking maniacs... today the banking people, maybe tomorrow Verizon...
I'm probably asking the wrong people here, because I'm sure most of the slashdot crowd thinks that corps being upset about this is ridiculous.
But if the corps are planning to sue, exactly what laws can they sue under? Is there really some branch of law that says the gov't has to take responsibility if change in policy hurts any segment of industry?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Information does not want to be free. It wants to be sold. It's just easier to copy. :-)
My beef isn't that there are different types of data, but rather that my personal information is not for sale at all. But for some reason, businesses not only use and copy it freely, but sell it without giving me a cut of the profits. It's my information. No different than artists feel when someone copies their mp3's.
Perhaps it's time I copyright my private data and charge companies to fill out their customer registration cards?
At least in the USA, corporations are legal citizens, and can make contracts with others. Maybe it's time I have people sign a contract in order to obtain information about me. If enough people make this difficult or impossible to manage effectively, they'll just stop.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
True, Libertarians want minimal government, but please don't construe that as being in favor of spamming. I personally regard spamming as theft (albeit extremely petty theft in any instance, but typically perpetrated in millions of counts at once.)
I'm skeptical of the ability of government to solve the spamming problem, since the mere act of prohibiting an action rarely causes it to end. Spamming requires a technical solution.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm betting either Oregon or Washington state.
Any other guesses?
If it ain't opt-in, it ain't gonna be legal.
Never forget that democracy means we have the power and that corporations are NOT people.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
the companies that whine over this can blow it out their collective corporate asses.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Peru, VT 05152.
Fuck those spammers!
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
Methanex, a Canadian company, is suing the U.S. gov't for $970 million because a California law against their carcinogenic gasoline additive is going to cost them money.
Metalclad, a U.S. company, has already won $16 million from Mexico because a community rejected their cancer-causing toxic waste dump.
These suits, being part of an international treaty, are not subject to national laws for appeal.
In other words, if your product is banned because it kills peoplesue the gov't for making your product illegal. Imagine cigarette companies being able to sue places that enact anti-smoking laws. (Hell, that just might happen, even.) Of course, we're talking actual frickin' toxic waste here, not just cigarettes. What a wonderful world we live in.
P.S.: Note that this is an article written by a prominent Republican, while I am not Republican by a long shot. I don't care, because it's a good article! :)
In other words, if your product is banned because it kills people, you can actually sue the gov't for making your product illegal. Imagine cigarette companies being able to sue places that enact anti-smoking laws. (Hell, that just might happen, even.) Of course, we're talking actual frickin' toxic waste here, not just cigarettes. What a wonderful world we live in.
P.S.: Note that this is an article written by a prominent Republican, while I am not Republican by a long shot. I don't care, because it's a good article! :)
How do I get all my snail mail forwarded via Vermont? I'd pay good money to have a Vermont address while I live in New Jersy if it mens I can sue or screw with any junk mailers who send me stuff.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Currently there is an american company suing the Canadian government for the same thing. with any luck it is the same additive. The problem, and the reason the lawsuits can and should exist? No proper study has proven the effects. Ie: neither government has had a study done because both 'know' it is harmfull. So they won't pay for a study of somehting so obvious. Hence: No study to use in court to show it is harmfull.
Even though it is.