Data Broker Medbase200 Sold Lists of Rape & Domestic Violence Victims 168
McGruber writes "During her testimony (PDF) at a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing Wednesday about the data-broker industry, Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, revealed that the Medbase200 unit of Integrated Business Services Incorporated had been offering a list of 'rape sufferers' on its website, at a cost of $79 for 1,000 names. The company, which sells marketing information to pharmaceutical companies, also offered lists of domestic violence victims, HIV/AIDS patients, and 'peer pressure sufferers.' In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Integrated Business Services Incorporated President Sam Tartamella initially denied that his company maintained or sold databases of rape victims. After the Journal provided him a link to the 'rape sufferers' page, he said he would remove it from Medbase200's website and denied ever having sold such a list. The page was removed later Wednesday."
Big Data should be banned (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't need to know this information and you especially don't need to know this information in aggregate.
Re:Big Data should be banned (Score:5, Insightful)
So you want to ban the study of entire fields like sociology and economics, as well as things like the testing of new pharmaceuticals?
Re: (Score:2)
The commenter proposed banning all data aggregation. It's hard to do any sort of study of large groups of people if you can't at some point collect and aggregate data about all the individuals involved.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. There is no need for information which identifies specific individuals when determining the effectiveness of a drug or medical procedure in a large group of people. There is no need for information which identifies specific individuals for market research or television ratings. Those are just a few examples. Data can be made anonymous without
Re:Big Data should be banned (Score:4, Informative)
There is no need for information which identifies specific individuals when determining the effectiveness of a drug or medical procedure in a large group of people.
Not always.
On the most basic level, you want to distinguish male from female. There are some drugs and diseases that have a different course in men than women, so you want to go back and see whether that's the case in a particular study.
There are some genes that are more common in black caribbean populations, that affect the metabolism of opioids. So a normal dose of codeine for a cough might be fatal for a black caribbean person. So you want to know in the study how many people were black (and preferably of caribbean origin).
You want to know who's a smoker and who's a non-smoker.
This is particularly an issue when you have one study that says a treatment worked, another study that says it didn't work, and you want to go back and figure out why they're coming to different conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Genetic data is a thorny issue. It can be very useful to have as complete genetic profile as possible in some data sets, especially when you don't know exactly what you are looking for. An example might be the genetic profiles of large numbers of breast cancer patients. As you learn more it could be useful to go back and differ
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. There is no need for information which identifies specific individuals when determining the effectiveness of a drug or medical procedure in a large group of people. There is no need for information which identifies specific individuals for market research or television ratings. Those are just a few examples. Data can be made anonymous without losing its usefulness.
Data can be made anonymous without losing its usefulness; however, data cannot be made anonymous without losing the ability to check its veracity.
If there is no real person connected to data in aggregate in a scientific study, then there is no way to prevent a scientist from making up data wholesale and padding the results to favor one outcome or another. Conversely, if a skeptical competitor levels charges of this against you, being unable to point to the real people that you derived the results from looks
Re: (Score:3)
No it can't. Even basic demographic data can be used to uniquely identify people. For example, {gender | birthdate | zip code} is a unique identifier for 87% of the people in this country:
http://dataprivacylab.org/projects/identifiability/paper1.pdf [dataprivacylab.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but what's wrong with the aggregated information? If information is properly aggregated, you can't use it to identify individuals. Perhaps you meant a different term? Only, I can't guess what term you meant.
so it's come to this (Score:2)
wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand what that is, nor why you're asking me..
Re: (Score:2)
Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'm starting a business which will sell data on the 1% to anyone who wants it. It's time to even the odds.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in. Great idea. What do you need from me? A customer? An investor? A researcher? A developer?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you need from me?
Just your name, address, favourite pet's name and cup size.
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:4, Funny)
What do you need from me?
Just your name, address, favourite pet's name and cup size.
Anonymous Coward
127.0.0.1
Tux
16 FL. Oz.
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot IS the 1%: You need just $34,000 annual income to be in the global elite.
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
I find that number to be wrong on many levels.
First, 1% of the population is about 70M people.
You're telling me that out of the population of the US, Canada and Western Europe, that only 70M of those people make more then $34,000?
If they were all Americans, that means 3 out of every 4 Americans make less than $34,000, a number I feel is high, especially when you add in the populations of Western Europe.
Additionally, I would think a there would be a significant number of those people in say, China (where income inequality is HUGE)..
I would believe the number is much closer to the top 5-8% of the population makes $34,000+.
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me that out of the population of the US, Canada and Western Europe, that only 70M of those people make more then $34,000?
That wouldn't surprise me too much. The inverse of the Labor Force Participation Rate (actual unemployment, as opposed to the reported unemployment statistic based on Americans eligible to receive unemployment benefits — it has run out for most Americans) is over 30% in the USA. And our populations are aging into retirement.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
time for eye opener
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The top 1% in 2011 earned $47,500 (individual income) according to the web site cited below. That means that a family of 2 adults would need to make $95,000/yr to fall into the global 1%. For a family with 2 kids, a dog and a hamster, that total grows to $190,000/yr. Remember kids, this is individual income distribution across all people, not family income distribution or anything like that.
Here is the source: http://www.globalrichlist.nl/how.asp [globalrichlist.nl]
Not a too many American families make it into the global 1
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States 25% of the >15 year old population has a personal income > $50K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] .25 * 234 x 10^6 = 58.5 x 10^6.
That's 0.8% of the world population.
Re: (Score:3)
In the United States 25% of the >15 year old population has a personal income > $50K
You are mixing per-capita income (mine) with the income of wage earners (yours). That is the same misleading comparison the web site I linked to was tempting potential donors with.
A clearer picture can be had by looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
The first big table has "household income" as well as "household size". This shows that one needs to be near the top 10% before you get to "$47,500 per capita" rate that is considered "the global 1%".
I am not downplay
Re: (Score:2)
I used the 2nd table which provides a straight histogram of the number of individuals in a particular income range. Per capita doesn't come into it at all.
The household income table is much more difficult to interpret in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
I used the 2nd table which provides a straight histogram of the number of individuals in a particular income range. Per capita doesn't come into it at all.
The household income table is much more difficult to interpret in this context.
Getting straight facts often takes a little effort. If you are not using per-capita income, you are throwing around numbers with no cited baseline. What is the top 1% for the numbers that you are using (with references)?
You have provided no credible sources for those figures at a global level. You started off with some random $50,000/yr figure and are comparing that to a completely different population group (wage earners). Apples::Oranges.
Here is another reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't pay too much attention to the Daily Mail. They have turned out to be unreliable too many times in the past. I've even caught them intentionally lying about some issues with global warming.
The 2nd chart in the article I used is from the US Census. I think that's pretty reliable.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01_001.htm [census.gov]
For the top 1% worldwide I used this:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwphe/0305002.html [repec.org]
And the calculator here:
http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/why-give/how-rich- [givingwhatwecan.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the US is ~5% of the world population. So I'd imagine 1/5 Americans would be the upper limit.
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me that out of the population of the US, Canada and Western Europe, that only 70M of those people make more then $34,000?
If they were all Americans, that means 3 out of every 4 Americans make less than $34,000, a number I feel is high, especially when you add in the populations of Western Europe.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html [census.gov]
Per capita money income in past 12 months (2012 dollars) $28,051
Median household income $53,046
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt those numbers. I suspect, e.g., that unemployed people are drastically undercounted. (This has been true in the past. I don't KNOW that it's true this time.) I'm certain that income from criminal activities is underreported. Etc. (There's also racial bias in the counts, and even some political bias...though that's usually accidental. You could say that about racial undercounting, also. Census takers are reluctant to interview truculent people in low-income areas, often due to fears of
Re: (Score:2)
Economists have a few internal checks to correct for as many inaccuracies as they can.
It doesn't have to be too accurate. It doesn't make much difference whether the per capita cash income is $25,000 a year or $30,000. It's still too low for an economy as successful as ours, with a cost of living as high as ours.
The American capitalist system is the most successful economy in the world, isn't it?
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhhh... there are many more places in the world than that. The OP is right - if you're here, you're most likely part of the global 1%.
The total population of the US, Canada, and the EU, as of 2008 is 550 million people out of a total global population of about 6.7 billion. 8% > 1%.
Of course, this is an irrelevant distraction, because the phrase "the 1%" was coined to cover the top 1% of Americans, not the world.
Re: (Score:3)
damn right!
I may be '1%' compared to some poor schuck in india or china but I'm not even close to 1% in my own country, where the comparison really matters.
those who shift the argument to 'world-wide' are intellectually dishonest.
Re: (Score:3)
In the context of parent's comment, yes, that matters very much.
After all, what is the average cost of living in India or China?
Re: (Score:2)
Since we have a military as big as the rest of the world put together, yes, this is the only place where it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy you're arguing with probably has no problem asserting that you don't know how good you have it here.
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:4, Interesting)
Well that's the point isn't it? They don't have it so good here. The fact that people elsewhere are held in worse conditions is immaterial just the way a man who beats and rapes a woman can't turn around to that woman and say "you have it so good, I didn't sell you into slavery.."
The fact is way too many Americans DON'T have to good - period. They have it pretty bad in fact. 22% of children live in outright poverty. When you look at how "poverty" is defined, it's really far far worse than that sounds 18.6K a year for a family of 3.
Perhaps you'd accept an employers logic that you should be paid 18.6 k a year because , hey, an entire *family* can make that much and STILL be OK. Or perhaps you'd find that logic exploitative, self-serving and irrelevant and the lifestyle which was forced on you by those wages grinding and abusive leaving you little in terms of time, money or energy so you could advance yourself.
The people who have it good ARE the top 1% and they're doing it at other people's expense, and to their own detriment BTW. Distorting laws and markets , in the long run hurts everyone. The problem is that run is long enough for an entire lifetime to play out nicely for the distorter. Given that people will do drugs that ruin their entire lives almost immediately in order to feel good for a very brief time, we can't expect the system to ever self correct.
The "you have it so good relative to X" is a fascist meme (not saying you yourself are fascist ! ! ). Scratch the surface and you'll see It's used almost exclusively to excuse abuse by an abuser or an enabler or sympathsizer of the enabler or, at best, someone who heard it and thought it sounded tough and realistic is a macho "life's tough, get over it" kinda way.
Re: (Score:3)
Every time I hear somebody say, "You don't know how good you have it here," I think of the 1960s underground comics artist Gilbert Shelton and his character Wonder Warthog, who used to go around saying that. "In other countries, the government tells people what they can eat, drink and smoke." I can't find the right cartoon, but here's a different one to give you the idea. http://bdtrash.forumdediscussions.com/t1410-wonder-wart-hog-super-heros-dejante-de-gilbert-shelton [forumdediscussions.com]
"You don't know how good you have it he
Re: (Score:2)
He included China. He did, however, admit that he couldn't estimate the fraction above the limit. Still, if he's right, and over 1% of Chinese make over $40,000 (due to inequality in distribution), then many on Slashdot may NOT be a part of the global 1%. China is the dominating factor here, and it's an unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard $44k, but your point stands. If you have sole use of a car, you're pretty much a huge baller by global standards.
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometime around the age of 12 one of my children commented "I wish we were rich."
I stopped the car and turned around, "We are rich." I said
"Both your mother and I both earn enough money to have a house and a car. You are always clothed and fed, you never go to bed hungry and cold. You get to travel, play sports and get a good education. Nobody forces you to work, ever. You don't have to fetch water just to survive, morning noon and night"
"Remember that there are tens of millions of people around the world who have none of these things, and you have them all."
I turned around and continued driving.
Years later my daughter reminded me of the conversation and how it had triggered a kind of awakening.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometime around the age of 12 one of my children commented "I wish we were rich."
I stopped the car and turned around, "We are rich." I said
"Both your mother and I both earn enough money to have a house and a car. You are always clothed and fed, you never go to bed hungry and cold. You get to travel, play sports and get a good education.
That must have been a long time ago, or you must have a lot of money. In order to get a good education today, you have to be rich. Not only does a college education cost at least $20,000 a year, but in the U.S. you usually have to live in an expensive neighborhood to go to a good K-12 education.
Nobody forces you to work, ever.
She never has to work? Even to make her living expenses? What does she have, a trust fund? She is rich.
Re: (Score:2)
That must have been a long time ago, or you must have a lot of money. In order to get a good education today, you have to be rich. Not only does a college education cost at least $20,000 a year, but in the U.S. you usually have to live in an expensive neighborhood to go to a good K-12 education.
No, we just live in a civilized country.
She never has to work? Even to make her living expenses? What does she have, a trust fund? She is rich.
Well
A) Forced, are you forced to work?
B) She was 12, I was talking about child labor.
Re: (Score:2)
$34,000/year in China or India is a lot. Not so in North America or Europe (lower middle-class at best in many places). You have to take in account the cost of living. I wouldn't even try living in New-York on that amount.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you know damned well what people mean by 'the 1%' and that that isn't it.
Of course, the $34,000 figure is a very simple minded computation that fails to capture things like cost of living.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot IS the 1%: You need just $34,000 annual income to be in the global elite.
Oh good! Thanks! You've convinced me that we need to do nothing about inequality!
Re: (Score:2)
"Someone else is (has it?)worse" is a really horrible argument against social inequality? With ~two billion people living of off 2 dollars a day or less, with no chance of any meaningful education or healthcare, I believe it to be a rather strong argument. Global is local, it's a tiny planet in my opinion as member of the galactic elite : ).
Apropos world military expenditure in 2012 totalled $1753 billion, around 2.5% of world GDP.
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:4, Insightful)
With ~two billion people living of off 2 dollars a day or less, with no chance of any meaningful education or healthcare, I believe it to be a rather strong argument.
No, it isn't.
I'm sure a hundred million kids get beaten daily. Doesn't make it right to beat yours.
Some evil somewhere else does not justify an evil here and now.
Re: (Score:2)
.Yes, it helps to remind ourselves that we're not living in a slum with no electricity and water, but "someone else is worse" is a really horrible argument against social inequality.
How come we can use "someone else is worse" to make the rich pay more taxes?
gov: Mr. Hunt, we're taxing your secret offshore account. Here's your tax bill: $1 billion.
Hunt (Tears pouring down his cheeks): Boo hoo! I can't afford that!
gov: Don't complain. Billionaires in Africa are starving.
Hunt: I won't create any more jobs! I'll move to Barbados!
gov: Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
How come we can use "someone else is worse" to make the rich pay more taxes?
You mean you are seriously questioning an argument that points out how A is not a reason to not act on B with the counter-argument that we do use A as an argument to do act on B?
Taxing the rich is the price they pay for society protecting them from the poor who'd otherwise go and take their wealth (and possibly their lives) away. It's a pretty good solution. The poor like it because they get at least some money without having to kill someone for it. The middle class likes it because it keeps society peacefu
Re:Time to sell List of CEOs home addresses (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's time to change the copyright laws so the subject of information has joint ownership of copyright on the information, with no implicit licensing. In other words, if you collect data about me in the course of our business relationship, it's private, and you may not retransmit it without my explicit, informed consent.
Captcha: nausea (how appropriate)
Re: (Score:2)
So you think Integrated Business Services ought to be allowed to take legal action against Pam Dixon for releasing information about them without having gotten their explicted informed consent first?
Re: (Score:3)
It still hobbles the ability of whistle blowers and reporters to inform the public. For example, Toronto Star reporters Kevin Donovan and Robyn Doolittle could be arrested for revealing the video of Rob Ford smoking crack without his permission.
Re: (Score:2)
I would concede that some implicit license should be given for information that is of significant public interest vs. purely commerce
Well at the very least, let's leave enough vagueness in it so the interpretation can be argued by scholars of the law.
What the hell kind of World will we have if they slip out of the 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to be in that business, I'll tell you ... it's already out there. I'm very glad I'm no longer anywhere near the industry. I'd feel better dealing with hitmen and druglords.
Some of the Fortune 1000 crowd have their data flagged. If you have access to a service that provides such information, and you search for say "Bill Gates", there will be a shitstorm.
We were told by some 3rd party data sources that we were contractually obliged to maintain a list of "high profile" people, so those searches w
Re: (Score:2)
So... the idea is to send the first list to the people on the second list?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
Turnabout is fair play.
How Fucked is That??? (Score:4, Funny)
Medbase200 unit of Integrated Business Services Incorporated had been offering a list of 'rape sufferers' on its website, at a cost of $79 for 1,000 names. The company, which sells marketing information to pharmaceutical companies, also offered lists of domestic violence victims, HIV/AIDS patients, and 'peer pressure sufferers.'
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going ahead and putting in my application with Uncle Enzo's CosaNostra Pizza Corporation...
Utterly despicable (Score:5, Insightful)
As if these poor peoples' lives weren't already shitty enough.
Now we have a bunch of marketeer ass-hats singling them out as unique business opportunities.
Yet again, making me wish I owned a gun, yet glad I don't, since I'd shoot these motherfuckers in a heartbeat.
Re:Utterly despicable (Score:5, Interesting)
(At the time of the conversation) its 13+ years later and someone had just stolen some hospital records and was harrasing recent D&C patients for "having Abortions" . . .
She was horror struck at what it must've been like, for those "want to be mothers", still suffering the tragedy of having lost a child unwillingly . . . to have some dipwad confront them and accuse them of having an Abortion.
Patient records should be sacrosanct for a reason.
Re: (Score:3)
My wife had a miscarriage like this.
Dipwad isn't the right word. I don't think human language is capable of expressing what this triggers in me.
Re: (Score:3)
Usually it's a non-verbal expression...
It starts with a clenching of the fists...and ends with the bastard basically homogenized over every surface within eyesight.
Psst... wanna buy a list? (Score:2)
Yet again, making me wish I owned a gun, yet glad I don't, since I'd shoot these motherfuckers in a heartbeat.
79 bucks gets you a gun catalog and a list of these Mofos.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Uh, why are you blaming us? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to expect this, when the only legal and moral duty that directors and managers of their companies are to look after their shareholders.
Actually they have a duty to behave in an ethical and moral fashion as well as to obey the law. In theory their corporate charter is supposed to be on condition that the entity is a net good for the society at large.
None of that is enforced, but that doesn't make it non-existant.
I agree that it is well past time to start enforcing.
To all those who reply to privacy concerns... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The people who say that obviously don't know enough about themselves.
With a USC so dense that even the feds themselves admit they have no way of knowing everything they've criminalized.
Re:To all those who reply to privacy concerns... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention safety. I was an IT contractor for a community outreach group that ran a number of safe homes for victims of rape and domestic violence. The addresses of those houses was very, very closely guarded, and the security measures in place to keep everything under wraps was dialed up to 11. Any lapses could potentially cost someone their life. Anyone responsible for selling this info needs to be locked up for a good, long time, and the articles of incorporation should be immediately dissolved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also for the other person mentioning doing IT work for rape shelter stuff - I bet it wouldn't be very hard to find volunteer armed guards for those types of safe houses. I personally, having known a few abuse victims, would view sitting around with a shotgun to ward off rapist/beaters as an honorable task. That would be a good community-outreach-volunteer program to get going in a lot of places: volunteer rape vict
Re: (Score:2)
a fine point (Score:4)
She said they would remove the listing from their website. She did not say she would stop selling or even destroy such a list.
Re:a fine point (Score:4, Insightful)
She said they would remove the listing from their website. She did not say she would stop selling or even destroy such a list.
Whether you take those words at face value or not, one thing they haven't even tried to deny is that they sell lists of people with other medical conditions, like diabetes. It is spelled out right there in the article.
"They" (Score:3)
Who are the "they" that are selling the list. Let's see names, addresses, phone numbers, family member names, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure you could buy such a list if you are willing to pay enough.
Re:a finer point (Score:2)
There are forces at work beyond my ken.
Realize this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is actually simpler:
"What's the revenue?"
"What's the risk of being caught?"
"What's the cost of being caught?"
If A>B*C it will be done.
simple solution (Score:2)
Let's just make sure he gets added to the list, then see how he feels about the subject!
Peer Pressure Sufferers? (Score:2)
Smells wrong (Score:2)
They claim that the list was a fake list used for testing, but even that suggests something wrong. Surely test data should be more harmless and fanciful to make sure it doesn't go live. A disease like monday blues or foot-in-mouth disease would be a better choice, surely.
Re: (Score:2)
People make mistakes. According to the New Scientist, a DP manager was creating a fund-raising letter for a charity's wealthy customers (the 1%?) and he set up a template letter with the salutation, "Dear Rich Bastard." It went out by mistake.
Make sure you have a few safeguards in place to prevent things like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, people do. 'Dear Rich Bastard' is funny (at least until you accidentally send it to someone). Rape victim isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
are you suggesting that SEC list should be "synchronised" with rape victim list, you little dirty boy?
Re: (Score:2)
It probably already is linked, only not in the way you think...
Re: (Score:2)
Executives usually provide the contact information of their lawyers, not their personal contact information.
Re: (Score:2)
HIPPA?
How is this even possible with the entire medical privacy laws.
Maybe you didn't get the memo? The government has stopped abiding by the law. Corporations have quit abiding by the law. Apparently these morons lack the imagination to figure out what happens as you extrapolate out what will occur when everyone quits abiding by the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I expect that the names were extracted from examining metadata, so that makes it legal (According to Feinstein, Obama and the NSA).
Re: (Score:2)
HIPPA makes it illegal for a health care provider to share the information. This company claims it got the data from other sources, which is legal if not ethical.
Plus HIPPA is so poorly written nobody really knows what it means anyway. The driver for it was to simplify Medicaid billing across the 50 states, all that privacy/security stuff was a toss in from Ted Kennedy
Re: (Score:2)
HIPPA makes it illegal for a health care provider to share the information. This company claims it got the data from other sources, which is legal if not ethical.
Plus HIPPA is so poorly written nobody really knows what it means anyway. The driver for it was to simplify Medicaid billing across the 50 states, all that privacy/security stuff was a toss in from Ted Kennedy
That's right. HIPPA doesn't actually protect your privacy -- it protects doctors and hospitals who want to violate your privacy.
It protects you
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't stop them from keeping it on a windows machine that isn't properly maintained or isolated.
Re: (Score:2)
The Roberts Supreme Court hasn't been very good to privacy. Under Sorrell v. IMS Health, it ruled that a doctor can't stop a pharmacy from selling his prescribing information to an information broker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(cannot sift through the whole book, sir).
Ah, but you could.