Nextgov on why the lawsuit against OPM over the massive data breach faces an uphill battle and why it is just a stupid waste of governmental resources and burdens the US court system with yet another unnecessary case (emphasis added):

The American Federation of Government Employees says OPM and a contractor violated the 1974 Privacy Act by neglecting to secure employees’ personal data, which resulted in financial and emotional harm.

The failure to protect workers’ data could hold up in court, but demonstrating damages have actually been suffered will be the challenge, legal experts say. The suspected thieves in this situation are foreign government spies aiming for access to U.S. secrets, not financial fraudsters seeking access to people’s bank accounts.

The real harm done for a federal employee or job applicant is now “living for the rest of your life knowing that all of your personal information is in the hands of another country and possibly terrorists, or possibly people that want to do harm to you, your family or the country,” said Cheri Cannon, a partner at federal employment law group Tully Rinckey. “The United States can’t fix that.”

But neither can any lawsuit, said Cannon, a former military attorney who says she’s affected by the breach. AFGE, the country’s largest government employee union, filed suit in U.S. District Court on Monday against the agency, OPM Director Katherine Archuleta, OPM Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour and the contractor, KeyPoint Government Solutions, which conducts background investigations for the government.

This article about how Monsanto’s worst fear may be coming true is quite fascinating, both for their position on why Monsanto must be concerned but also because of the explanation of the science behind GMO’s:

The decision of the Chipotle restaurant chain to make its product lines GMO-free is not most people’s idea of a world-historic event. Especially since Chipotle, by US standards, is not a huge operation. A clear sign that the move is significant, however, is that Chipotle’s decision was met with a tidal-wave of establishment media abuse. Chipotle has been called irresponsible, anti-science, irrational, and much more by the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, and many others. A business deciding to give consumers what they want was surely never so contentious.

The media’s heavy criticism of Chipotle has an explanation that is important to the future of GMOs. The cause of it is that there has long been an incipient crack in the solid public front that the food industry has presented on the GMO issue. The crack originates from the fact that while agribusiness sees GMOs as central to their business future, the brand-oriented and customer-sensitive ends of the food supply chain do not.

The brands who sell to the public, such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, Kraft, etc., are therefore much less committed to GMOs. They have gone along with their use, probably because they wish to maintain good relations with agribusiness, who are their allies and their suppliers. Possibly also they see a potential for novel products in a GMO future.

However, over the last five years, as the reputation of GMOs has come under increasing pressure in the US, the cost to food brands of ignoring the growing consumer demand for GMO-free products has increased. They might not say so in public, but the sellers of top brands have little incentive to take the flack for selling GMOs.

From this perspective, the significance of the Chipotle move becomes clear. If Chipotle can gain market share and prestige, or charge higher prices, from selling non-GMO products and give (especially young) consumers what they want, it puts traditional vendors of fast and processed food products in an invidious position. Kraft and McDonalds, and their traditional rivals can hardly be left on the sidelines selling outmoded products to a shrinking market. They will not last long.

I do not feel one bit of sympathy for Monsanto and their sue-happy business model.