LEGAL NOTICE If you purchased Hill's Prescription Diet or Science Diet Canned Dog Food Between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019, Your Rights May Be Affected by a Class Action Settlement. | |
| WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? The lawsuit claims that Hill's Prescription Diet(HPD) and Science Diet(SD) canned dog food products had high levels of Vitamin D. The lawsuit states that purchasers of these products lost money by purchasing dog food products that were not manufactured as represented and/or paid for services as a result of injuries to their dogs. The Court will hold a hearing on July 27, 2021, at 10:00 a. m. by Zoom Video, which may be moved to a different location, time or date. The Zoom Video link will be posted on www.PetFoodSettlement.com. WHO IS INCLUDED? You are included in the Settlement if you purchased HPD and/or SD canned dog food products in the U. S. between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019. | WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Consumer Food Purchase: If you purchased HPD and/or SD canned dog food products between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019, you could get a full refund with Proof of Purchase or up to 。20 total without Proof of Purchase. You must submit a valid Claim Form by July 2, 2021. Dog Injury: If your dog suffered injuries consistent with the consumption of excess Vitamin D as a result of your dog eating HPD and/or SD canned dog food products, you could receive money. You must submit a valid Claim Form with proper documentation by July 2, 2021. You can find more details on how to submit a claim by visiting www.PetFoodSettlement.com or calling 1-833-537-1191. |
www.PetFoodSettlement.com 1-833-537-1191 | |
1. When will the hearing be held according to the notice?
| A．July 27, 2021. | B．July 2, 2021. |
| C．May 31, 2019. | D．Sept. 1, 2018. |
| A．One provided some proof of purchasing related products. |
| B．One purchased HPD canned dog food on Sept. 11, 2018. |
| C．One submitted a valid claim application form on July 3, 2021. |
| D．One purchased some SD canned dog food products, costing $20. |
| A．1. | B．2. |
| C．3. | D．4. |
2 . Communities across the world are starting to ban facial recognition technologies. The efforts are well intentioned, but banning facial recognition is the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance （监 视）.Generally, modern mass surveillance has three broad components: identification, correlation and discrimination.
Facial recognition is a technology that can be used to identify people without their consent. Once we are identified, the data about who we are and what we are doing can be correlated with other data. This might be movement data, which can be used to "follow” us as we move throughout our day. It can be purchasing data, Internet browsing data, or data about who we talk to via email or text. It might be data about our income, ethnicity, lifestyle, profession and interests. There is an entire industry of data brokers who make a living by selling our data without our consent.
It's not just that they know who we are; it's that they correlate what they know about us to create profiles about who we are and what our interests are. The whole purpose of this process is for companies to treat individuals differently. We are shown different ads on the Internet and receive different offers for credit cards. In the future, we might be treated differently when we walk into a store, just as we currently are when we visit websites.
It doesn't matter which technology is used to identify people. What's important is that we can be consistently identified over time. We might be completely anonymous （匿名的）in a system that uses unique cookies to track us as we browse the Internet, but the same process of correlation and discrimination still occurs.
Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won't make any difference. The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible.
Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent. The data broker industry is almost entirely unregulated now. Reasonable laws would prevent the worst of their abuses.
Finally, we need better rules about when and how it is permissible for companies to discriminate. Discrimination based on protected characteristics like race and gender is already illegal, but those rules are ineffectual against the current technologies of surveillance and control. When people can be identified and their data correlated at a speed and scale previously unseen, we need new rules.
Today, facial recognition technologies are receiving the force of the tech backlash （抵制），but focusing on them misses the point. We need to have a serious conversation about all the technologies of identification, correlation and discrimination, and decide how much we want to be spied on and what sorts of influence we want them to have over our lives.
1. According to Para. 2, with facial recognition _______.| A．one’s lifestyle changes greatly |
| B．one's email content is disclosed |
| C．one's profiles are updated in time |
| D．one's personal information is released |
| A．discrimination based on new tech surveillance is illegal |
| B．different browsing data bring in different advertisements |
| C．using mobiles anonymously keeps us from being correlated |
| D．data brokers control the current technologies of surveillance |
| A．people's concern over their safety |
| B．the nature of the surveillance society |
| C．proper regulation of mass surveillance |
| D．the importance of identification technology |
| A．call for banning facial recognition technologies |
| B．advocate the urgent need for changes in related laws |
| C．inform readers of the disadvantages of facial recognition |
| D．evaluate three broad components in modem mass surveillance |
