They don't go well with juice:
"Verizon’s use of mobile ‘supercookies’ is seen as privacy threat
NEW YORK — For months, cybersecurity experts have been warning Verizon Wireless it was putting customers’ privacy at risk. The computer codes it uses to follow its mobile subscribers around the Web, they say, make them vulnerable to covert tracking. It looks as if there’s reason to worry. Jonathan Mayer, a lawyer and computer science graduate student at Stanford University, reported on his blog that Turn, an advertising software company, was using Verizon’s codes to regenerate its own tracking tags after consumers chose to delete a cookie — a bit of code that can stick with your Web browser after you visit a site. Turn found a way to keep tracking visitors even after they tried to delete their digital footprints. Verizon’s codes trouble some experts who say Verizon introduced a tracking mechanism that third parties can easily exploit. Internet users can delete regular cookies, but Verizon Wireless users cannot delete its so-called super cookies."
I'm sure it's simply a trapdoor for the government to gather your data for your own safety.
Related: Police, saying they’re targets, ask Google to alter traffic app
Yeah, the spying is only for you, citizen.
See: GPS Ruins Maine Patrols
Oh, that's why they don't want the.... sigh.
Did you check the label on those cookies?
"GMO labels for food are in high demand but provide little certainty" by Stephanie Strom, New York Times January 31, 2015
NEW YORK — There are few industry debates as heated these days as the one about labeling foods that contain genetically modified ingredients.
You don't see that much discussion of the issue in my pre$$.
And while interest groups and advocates wage war in state legislatures, on ballots, and in Congress over what should be disclosed on product labels, products certified as not containing genetically modified organisms keep proliferating on grocery shelves without any nationwide mandatory regulations.
That's about the point I kinda lost interest in the piece because -- once again -- the goddamn issue is framed in terms of war. Then again, what should I expect from a war paper?
Moreover, many manufacturers are nodding to the public debate, adding the phrase “non-GMO” to their packaging without a verification process.
“We’ve put it on our labels because it was something our customers wanted to know,” said Hitesh Hajarnavis, chief executive of Popcorn Indiana, which sells ready-to-eat popcorn.
So if more companies elect to stick labels on their products stating that they are GMO-free, whether verified or not, does that make the fierce policy debate increasingly moot? “It’s an interesting question,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, which lobbies for mandatory labeling.
Looks like another wave of "green con$umeri$m" by the $ame old agenda-pu$hing intere$ts to me.
The shift toward voluntary labeling has also led to a lot of consumer confusion, as different labels, organizations, and agencies issue seals or stamps that attest to compliance with few, if any, uniform standards. In addition, food companies are tacking the words non-GMO on items that would never be considered in need of such labeling.
It's a marketing pitch.
The Non-GMO Project, the leading certification group in the United States, has verified more than 24,500 products, while the average grocery store contains 40,000 to 50,000 items, some of which are not food, according to the Food Marketing Institute.
Even more products have packaging that simply contains language stating that they are GMO-free. Boxes of the original Cheerios, for example, state “not made with genetically modified ingredients” on a side panel.
Nielsen, which does consumer research and analysis, said sales of non-GMO products exceeded $10 billion last year and grew at a faster pace than sales of gluten-free items over the last four years.
In a Nielsen study of 30,000 consumers published this month, 80 percent of respondents said they would pay more for foods with labels like “non-GMO” even though a majority of them do not necessarily trust food labels.
The problem there is in$titutional failure all acro$$ the board in AmeriKa. That is why we no longer trust authority or their mouthpieces.
And 61 percent of those consumers said it was “very” or “moderately” important to buy products with a non-GMO label, exceeded only by those saying it was important to buy products without high-fructose corn syrup.
Otherwise known as rot gut sugar.
Granted, the average store is unlikely to carry a full complement of the certified products, while food cooperatives, natural food stores and chains like Sprouts Farmers Market and Whole Foods have a higher proportion of items that have been officially certified.
Proponents of labeling note that although sales of products certified by the Non-GMO Project almost tripled last year, to more than $8.5 billion, that represents a minuscule fraction of total sales at grocery stores of $620 billion in 2013. “Unfortunately, we’re still a long way from the point at which voluntary labeling tackles the problem,” said Halloran of Consumers Union.
Michael R. Gruber, vice president for federal affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade association, said its members wanted the Food and Drug Administration to be the main regulator of food labeling, a role it has had historically.
--more--"
Related: Shake Shack shares more than double in market debut
Don't binge out on that $tuff.
