In September 1986, The Economist weekly newspaper published its first-ever “Big Mac Index”.

It was a light-hearted way for the paper to gauge whether foreign currencies are over- or under-valued by comparing the prices of Big Macs around the world.



In theory, the price of a Big Mac in Rio de Janeiro should be the same as a Big Mac in Cairo or Toronto.

After all, no matter where in the world you buy one, a Big Mac generally consists of the same ingredients– two all beef patties, special sauce, etc.

A Big Mac currently sells for 49 pesos in Mexico, for example; at the current exchange rate, that’s about $2.23 US dollars.

Meanwhile in Switzerland, a Big Mac sells for 6.50 francs, or roughly USD $6.35.

This means that a Big Mac in Switzerland costs 2.8x as much as the exact same burger in Mexico.

Obviously there are a LOT of differences between Switzerland and Mexico that would ordinarily lead to some difference in price.

But 2.8x is clearly excessive, suggesting that the Mexican peso is undervalued relative to the Swiss franc.

The most recent Big Mac Index was just released last week.

It shows that the US dollar is currently OVERVALUED against almost every currency in the world.



Canada. Russia. UK. South Africa. Turkey. Poland. Colombia. Philippines. Euro Area. Australia.

The average price of a Big Mac in each of these countries is dramatically cheaper than in the United States.

The Economist’s data show, for example, that the average Big Mac price in the US is $5.06.

(By the way, that’s 17% higher than the average US price of $4.37 that the newspaper reported in January 2013… not that there’s been any inflation.)

In Canada, however, the paper reports an average price of $6 Canadian dollars, or USD $4.51 at current exchange rates.

This suggests that the Canadian dollar is about 11% undervalued relative to the US dollar.

In the Euro area, the average price of a Big Mac is 3.88 euros, about $4.06 based on current exchange rates.

That implies the euro is 20% undervalued against the US dollar.

In places like Malaysia, South Africa, and Russia, it’s even more extreme, with local currencies 60%+ undervalued against the US dollar.

It’s important to understand what this means.

The fact that the dollar is overvalued isn’t some big prize. It’s not an indication that America is #1, the dollar is King, or that the US economy is strong.

This is a bubble.

Currencies, just like stocks and bonds, are assets traded in global financial markets.

And just like stocks and bonds, currencies can be in a bubble.

You may remember the dot-com bubble of the 1990s, when the stock prices of laughable websites (like Pets.com) soared to unimaginable heights.

As with all bubbles, that one eventually burst, and stock prices crashed.

The US dollar has been in a bubble for more than two years.

Yes, there are clearly a number of fundamental differences between the United States and other countries that would lead to natural exchange rate imbalances.

But again, we’re not talking about the US dollar being overvalued by 5% or 10%. We’re talking about EXTREME differences that are completely irrational.

And it’s not just Big Macs either.

Nearly every shred of objective data suggests that the US dollar is overvalued.

The “US Dollar Index,” for example, which measures the US dollar’s value against an entire group of currencies like the euro, Japanese yen Canadian dollar, etc., is currently at its highest level in 14 years.

Politicians and policymakers hate this.

They ignore all the benefits of a strong currency, and instead claim that a strong dollar makes US goods and services too expensive for foreigners to buy, which hurts exports.

Donald Trump told the Wall Street Journal last week that the US dollar is “too strong. And it’s killing us.”

On that single statement alone, the dollar index fell 1%.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen has also weighed in on the overvalued US dollar, calling it “a drag on U.S. growth”.

No one has a crystal ball, and it’s impossible to predict precisely WHEN this bubble starts to deflate.

In fact, it’s possible that the dollar becomes even stronger than it is today.

But when the two most powerful policymakers in the country both want the US dollar to get weaker, it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen.

This means that, right now, if you’re holding US dollars, you have an opportunity.

The evidence shows that the dollar is irrationally overvalued, and both the Federal Reserve and the US government want it to be weaker.

The evidence also shows that there are plenty of foreign currencies which are heavily UNDER-valued against the US dollar.

The old saying in investing is “Buy Low, Sell High.”

It also works the other way: “Sell High, Buy Low.”

And that is precisely the opportunity right now: to SELL overvalued US dollars at their 14-year high, and BUY top quality, undervalued foreign assets at their record lows.

Do you have a Plan B?

In Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin's written responses to Senate questions, he made it clear that the "strong dollar" policy may not always be his priority as he noted "an excessively strong dollar may be negative in the short-term."

“The strength of the dollar has historically been tied to the strength of the U.S. economy and the faith that investors have in doing business in America,” Mnuchin said in written responses to questions from U.S. senators obtained by Bloomberg News.

“From time to time, an excessively strong dollar may have negative short-term implications on the economy.”
Additional headlines include:

*MNUCHIN REPLIES TO SENATE IN DOCUMENT OBTAINED BY BLOOMBERG
*MNUCHIN: TREASURY HAS RANGE OF TOOLS TO ADDRESS UNFAIR TRADE
*MNUCHIN: WILL ENSURE WEALTHY TAXPAYERS CAN'T GAME TAX SYSTEM
*MNUCHIN: WILL ADDRESS ISSUE OF CURRENCY MANIPULATION
*MNUCHIN: `EXCESSIVELY STRONG' USD MAY BE NEGATIVE IN SHORT TERM
*MNUCHIN: U.S. IMF FUNDS MUST BE USED IN LINE WITH POLICY GOALS
*MNUCHIN: WOULD ENFORCE EXISTING SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN, RUSSIA
*MNUCHIN: WOULD CONSIDER ALL OPTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING

The reaction is clear in USDJPY...

The Dollar Index has dropped below 100 for the first time The ECB's December meeting...

The Syrian government and rebels have taken a new “sensible” path in negotiations, said Russia’s representative in the Kazakh capital, Astana. He predicted a “good outcome” for the two-day peace conference, while admitting that direct talks remain unlikely.
“The first day of the talks was relatively fruitful,” the Russian president’s special envoy to Syria, Aleksandr Lavrentiev, told journalists on Monday evening. “It is notable the opening happened not only in the presence of the three country guarantors of the December 29 ceasefire [Russia, Turkey and Iran] but also in the presence of the representative of the UN Secretary-General Staffan de Mistura and the US Ambassador to Kazakhstan, as well as in the presence of the delegations of Syrian government and Syrian armed opposition.”

“I think that it is an important and symbolic step which gives hope for a new [qualitative] level in the negotiation process,” Lavrentiev added.

Despite anonymous hints of such a possibility to the media from delegations, Lavrentiev admitted that direct talks between the sides remained off the table, but praised the sides, who had engaged in a war of words before talks started, for stepping back from the brink.

“Although tensions were running high initially, the two sides chose a sensible path, and attempted to avoid taking decisions that could sabotage this highly-important event,” said the Russian diplomat in reference to the conference, which has been jointly mediated by Moscow, Ankara and Tehran.

While Lavrentiev said that the Russian side had reached “complete understanding” with the government delegation, and also held a “very productive” session with de Mistura, he also noted progress in the attitude of those opposition representatives who agreed to come to Kazakhstan.

“The level of distrust that we have observed has gone down considerably, and as they have finally understood that they are dealing with a reliable partner in… the Russian Federation,” said Lavrentiev.

Lavrentiev pointed that even through mediators, the two sides had not completed the discussions on “such relevant topics as the ceasefire regime, the distinction of opposition forces from Daesh and Al-Nusra Front, and the joint fight against terrorism."

Al-Nusra and Islamic State have not been invited to the conference, while the Kurdish YPG militia said on Monday that it was “not bound” by any decisions taken in Astana.

Lavrentiev said that the talks – not only between the two direct combatants in the conflict that has raged in 2011, but the other involved parties – would continue from 10m local time on Tuesday, saying he was hopeful of a “good outcome,” with a meaningful final statement due to be released on the same evening.

Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst to the US Secretary of Defense, called the fact that the negotiations took place a “major breakthrough that we would not have seen six months ago.”

“It’s monumental. First of all, you have the opposition sitting right across the table from the Syrian government. A few months ago, this was not going to happen,” Maloof said, adding that credit for making the negotiations possible can in large part be given to Russia.

“I think that part of it has to do with the leadership of Moscow and getting both Iranians and the Turks – and the Turks make a major contribution here – together, and even inviting the US to sit in, whereas that was not happening earlier,” the former Pentagon official said, calling the Astana meeting “an extension of Geneva talks.”

Among the most significant factors that drove the opposition to take part in the talks was the change of leadership in Washington as well as Aleppo’s liberation, Maloof argued.

“Now, the United States has different representation and the opposition realizes that they are not going to be getting the backing that they once had from the Obama administration. They also saw what occurred in Aleppo – that was important – perhaps the beginning of the end for the jihadi, Salafist elements there,” he said.

One of the main differences from the previous intra-Syrian talks is that actual military commanders, and not only political representatives, were present at the round table.

“I think that that’s important, because they have control over the areas and the fighters over which they control in those areas,” Maloof said.

The United States has wounded and captured ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi after one day of punishing airstrikes, according to reports from Iraq.

President Trump convened his top generals on his first day in office and ordered them to provide a plan to eradicate ISIS within 30 days – a key election promise – and according to sources in the region the new tactics have drawn immediate success.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis spent his first full day at the Pentagon by overseeing 31 strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. A variety of fighters, bombers and remotely piloted aircraft engaged in the bombing run, which saw 25 strikes in Syria and six in Iraq.

In Syria, two strikes destroyed ISIL units and artillery near the town of Bab. Daesh forces in Raqqa, the terrorist group’s stronghold, took a heavy beating, as 22 strikes destroyed 12 tactical units, nine fighting positions, two underground improvised explosive bomb factories and an ISIS headquarters. The final strike targeted two IS oil wells in Deir ez Zour.

The account was backed up by the Iraq Oil Report, a respected source that gathers daily updates on security developments inside Mosul and surrounding ISIS-held areas from a network of local reporters, residents and fighters.

“Increased coalition air activity spotted around Ba’aj fuels rumors of IS “Caliph” being surrounded“.


As the dust settles on the fiercest bombardment ISIS have ever received, the word on the street in Iraq is that the new US administration have done what Obama could not, or would not, do – take out ISIS mastermind Al-Baghdadi.

A cornerstone of President Trump’s campaign was the promise that he would destroy ISIS as quickly as possible. He convened his top generals on his first day in office and ordered them to provide a plan to eradicate ISIS once and for all within 30 days.

As the new head of the Pentagon, Mattis would be expected to act on Trump’s plans and make them happen. The former Marine general, who once referred to Obama’s ISIS policy as full of “half measures” seems to have the plan on track.

This morning President Trump ordered the CDC Headquarters in Atlanta to be raided at 3:00 Am Their Time.

Although Unconfirmed the CDC did tell me on the phone a few minutes ago: "We Are Not Allowed To Comment On That.Please Email me and we will give you a statement about it. "

I also had 36 Posts on my video 10 minutes before it was posted...

Long before the Employees began showing up to work the FBI was busting down doors and seizing computers.

Accompanying these FBI Agents was Dr William Thompson - who is a CDC Whistle Blower.

The raid was ordered by the President and was led by Sally Yates - Acting Attorney General and part of the King and Spalding Law Group, which was also working with President Trump’s huge law firm: “Jones Day.”

All of the records for the Vaccines - what is in them, what they have done to people across the globe - it is all being seized as you read this.

As soon as President Obama took office he granted both the CDC and Monsanto protection in their massive use of GMO Foods and Vaccines to kill people world wide. That protection is now gone. The employees involved in murder and disabling people world wide have two choices:

Become a whistle blower or face 20 years to life in prison.

It wasn't just the EPA.

Earlier today, we reported that the Trump administration instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency and barred staff from awarding any new contracts or grants.

Emails sent to EPA staff since President Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday and reviewed by The Associated Press, detailed the specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency's social media accounts. On Monday, the Huffington Post reported that EPA grants had been frozen, with agency employees barred from speaking of the matter. The memo ordering the social media blackout is shown below.

Cited by The Hill, Myron Ebell, who leads the Trump EPA transition, confirmed the freeze to ProPublica. “They’re trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don’t want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first,” Ebell told ProPublica. Trump's pick for EPA director, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has frequently challenged agency policy in court.

The Trump administration reportedly told the Department of the Interior to stop tweeting from its accounts over the weekend after the National Park Service's Twitter account retweeted a post about the crowd sizes at Trump's inauguration Friday. The agency brought back its accounts on Saturday.

Asked if the EPA had been gagged, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday: "I don't know ... we're looking into it ... I don't think it's a surprise we're going to review the policies but I don't have any info at this time."

According to Reuters sources, the move "reinforced concerns that Trump, a climate change doubter, could seek to sideline scientific research showing that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, as well as the career staffers at the agencies that conduct much of this research."

The agency also was asked by the White House on Monday to temporarily halt all contracts, grants and interagency agreements pending a review, according to multiple sources. The EPA awards billions of dollars worth of grants and contracts every year to support programs around environmental testing, cleanups and research. According to Reuters,
the White House sent a letter to the EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management ordering the freeze on Monday. "Basically no money moving anywhere until they can take a look," the staffer said, asking not to be named.

* * *

Now, as Reuters adds, other agencies were also impacted, and the Trump's administration has put staff at a slew of government agencies on notice - "be careful what you say."

In addition to the EPA, the Interior Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture also has seen efforts to curb communication. On Monday, staff at the department's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) were asked in an email to suspend the release of "any public-facing documents."

"This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content," the email said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture disavowed the email on Tuesday, saying in a statement that it was released without "departmental direction and prior to departmental guidance being issued."

"ARS will be providing updated direction to its staff," according to the statement.

The ARS focuses on scientific research into the main issues facing agriculture, including long-term climate change.

Last week, staff at the Interior Department were told to stop posting on Twitter after an employee retweeted posts about the relatively low attendance at Trump's inauguration, and about how the issues of climate change and civil rights had disappeared from the White House website.

The department has since resumed tweeting.

Having stunned the media with his Monday night announcement before members of Congress during a private reception that Trump only lost the popular vote due to vote fraud, the president refused to back down the next day, when on Tuesday the White House said Trump stands by his belief that millions of people voted illegally in the U.S. election.

"The president does believe that," White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters. The press secretary said the president had said "3 to 5 million people could have voted illegally, based on the studies that he's seen" although he did not quote the studies.

Fast forward to Wednesday morning when anyone who wondered if Trump would let go of this particularly sensitive issues which attacks the legitimacy of his presidency, got their answer with a series of two tweets by the President, who shortly after 7am said that he will request a probe into US voter fraud to resolve the ongoing back and forth once and for all:

"I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!"

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and....
8:10 AM - 25 Jan 2017
9,198 9,198 Retweets 36,800 36,800 likes
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!
8:13 AM - 25 Jan 2017
7,091 7,091 Retweets 32,097 32,097 likes
Trump's proposed investigation will likely be undertaken by the Department of Justice, whose new head, Jeff Sessions, has yet to be confirmed.

As noted above, this "thread" started on Monday night when Trump said he lost the popular vote because of rampant voter fraud by "illegals." "He said 3 to 5 million 'illegals' voted so that's why he lost popular vote," a Democratic aide said. The president made similar claims in tweets he posted after his victory.

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," he tweeted after Election Day.

Several lawmakers and reporters have since disputed the president's claims about rampant voter fraud, saying there is no evidence to back up his allegations, which explains Trump's insistence to get to the bottom of this.

Since the topic of voter fraud was widely cast by the mainstream press as falling under the "fake news" umbrella during the presidential campaign, Trump has just waved red, dripping meat before the US media which will dutifully focus on this one statement, while putting all the other things to come out from the Trump administration on its third working day, on the back burner especially since on December 1, the Trump legal team, commenting on the Stein recount, said "all available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud/mistake" .

My comment : WOW -- Possibly the CDC was raided by the FBI. Again, this is not confirmed by Trump's administration. I haven't seen any source confirming this. However, it's quite probable. That would be wonderful.

FBI RAID ON CDC HQ ATLANTA - CONFIRMED

While some people may get their news from FOX, others get their news from theonion and whatdoesitmean.

Lots of great headlines:

Abandoned Texas Wal-Mart To Reopen As Shelter For Illegal Immigrants With Tax-Dollar Funding

Pope Orders Knights Of Malta Destroyed For Loyalty To Trump After CIA Spies Arrested In Russia

Trump Claims Waterboarding Doesn’t Come Close To The Excruciating Torment He Experiences At Every Moment

Having discontinued its production of EUR500 banknotes, it appears Europe is charging towards the utopian dream of a cashless society. Just days after Davos' elites discussed why the world needs to "get rid of currency," the European Commission has introduced a proposal enforcing "restrictions on payments in cash."

With Rogoff, Stiglitz, Summers et al. all calling for the end of cash - because only terrorists and drug-dealers need cash (nothing at all to do with totalitarian control over a nation's wealth) - we are not surprised that this proposal from the European Commission (sanctuary of statism) would appear...

The Commission published on 2 February 2016 a Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Action Plan to further step up the fight against the financing of terrorism (COM (2016) 50). The Action Plan builds on existing EU rules to adapt to new threats and aims at updating EU policies in line with international standards. In the context of the Commission's action to extent the scope of the Regulation on the controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, reference is made to the appropriateness to explore the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments.
The Action Plan states that "Payments in cash are widely used in the financing of terrorist activities… In this context, the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments could also be explored. Several Member States have in place prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold."

Cash has the important feature of offering anonymity to transactions. Such anonymity may be desired for legitimate reason (e.g. protection of privacy). But, such anonymity can also be misused for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. The possibility to conduct large cash payments facilitates money laundering and terrorist financing activities because of the difficulty to control cash payment transactions.

...

Potential restrictions to cash payments would be a mean to fight criminal activities entailing large payment transactions in cash by organised criminal networks. Restricting large payments in cash, in addition to cash declarations and other AML obligations, would hamper the operation of terrorist networks, and other criminal activities, i.e. have a preventive effect. It would also facilitate further investigations to track financial transactions in the course of terrorist activities. Effective investigations are hindered as cash payments transactions are anonymous. Thus restrictions on cash payments would facilitate investigations. However, as cash transactions are moved to the financial system, it is essential that financial institutions have adequate controls and procedures in place that enable them to know the person with whom they are dealing. Adequate due diligence on new and existing customers is a key part of these controls in, line with the AMLD.

Terrorists use cash to sustain their illegal activities, not only for illegal transactions (e.g. the acquisition of explosives) but also for payments which are in appearance legal (e.g. transactions for accommodation or transport). While a restriction on payments in cash would certainly be ignored for transactions that are in any case already illegal, the restriction could create a significant hindrance to the conduct of transactions that are ancillary to terrorist activities.

...

Organised crime and terrorism financing rely on cash for payments for carrying out their illegal activities and benefitting from them. By restricting the possibilities to use cash, the proposal would contribute to disrupt the financing of terrorism, as the need to use non anonymous means of payment would either deter the activity or contribute to its easier detection and investigation. Any such proposal would also aim at harmonising restrictions across the Union, thus creating a level playing field for businesses and removing distortions of competition in the internal market. It would additionally foster the fight against money laundering, tax fraud and organised crime.
And then right at the end, they mention "fundamental rights"...

While being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right, the objective of the initiative, which is to prevent the anonymity that cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, as complemented by article 52 of the Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The objectives of potential restrictions to cash payments could fit such description. It should also be observed that national restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based on an infringement to fundamental rights.
Full Proposal below...



* * *

Below are some recent thoughts on the matter from SovereignMan's Simon Black, who detailed previously that the war on cash is happening faster than we could have ever imagined, and predictably, is based on lies.

Every time we turn around, it seems, there’s another major assault in the War on Cash. India is the most notable recent example– the embarrassing debacle a few weeks ago in which the government, overnight, “demonetized” its two largest denominations of cash, leaving an entire nation in chaos. But there have been so many smaller examples.

In the US city of New Orleans, the local government decided earlier this month to stop accepting cash payments from drivers at the Office of Motor Vehicles. As I wrote to you recently, several branches of Citibank in Australia have stopped dealing in cash altogether. And former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers published an article last week stating that “nothing in the Indian experience gives us pause in recommending that no more large notes be created in the United States, Europe, and around the world.” In other words, despite the India chaos, Summers thinks we should still curtail the $100 bill.

The conclave of the high priests of monetary policy almost invariably sings the same chorus: only criminals and terrorists use high denominations of cash. Ken Rogoff, Harvard professor and former official at the International Monetary Fund and Federal Reserve, recently published a book blatantly entitled The Curse of Cash. Ben Bernanke’s called it a “fascinating and important book”.

And, shockingly, a number of reviews on Amazon.com praise “brilliant” Rogoff’s “visionary concepts” in his “excellent book”. Rogoff, like most of his colleagues, contends that large bills like the $100 or 500 euro note are only used in “drug trade, extortion, bribes, human trafficking. . .” In fact they jokingly refer to the 500-euro note as the “Bin Laden” since it’s apparently only used by terrorists.

Give me a break. My team and I did some of research on this and found some rather interesting data.It turns out that countries with higher denominations of cash actually have much lower crime rates, including rates of organized crime.

The research was simple; we looked at the World Economic Forum’s competitive rankings that assesses countries’ levels of organized crime, as well as the direct business costs of dealing with crime and violence.

Switzerland, with its 1,000 Swiss franc note (roughly $1,000 USD) has among the lowest levels of organized crime in the world according to the WEF. Ditto for Singapore, which has a 1,000 Singapore dollar note (about $700 USD). Japan’s highest denomination of currency is 10,000 yen, worth $88 today. Yet Japan also has extremely low crime rates. Same for the United Arab Emirates, whose highest denomination is the 1,000 dirham ($272).

If you examine countries with very low denominations of cash, the opposite holds true: crime rates, and in particular organized crime rates, are extremely high. Consider Venezuela, Nigeria, Brazil, South Africa, etc. Organized crime is prevalent. Yet each of these has a currency whose maximum denomination is less than $30.

The same trend holds true when looking at corruption and tax evasion.

Yesterday we wrote to you about Georgia, a small country on the Black Sea whose flat tax prompted tax compliance (and tax revenue) to soar. It’s considered one of the most efficient places to do business with very low levels of corruption. And yet the highest denomination note in Georgia is the 500 lari bill, worth about $200. That’s a lot of money in a country where the average wage is a few hundred dollars per month. Compare that to Malaysia or Uzbekistan, two countries where corruption abounds. Malaysia’s top cash note is 50 ringgit, worth about $11. And Uzbekistan’s 5,000 som is worth a paltry $1.57.

Bottom line, the political and financial establishments want you to willingly get on board with the idea of abolishing, or at least reducing, cash.

And they’re pumping out all sorts of propaganda to do it, trying to get people to equate crime and corruption with high denominations of cash.
Simply put, the data doesn’t support their assertion. It’s just another hoax that will give them more power at the expense of your privacy and freedom.