They have some liability in my judgment. They may not now, but maybe we ought to find out if there ought not to be some way to do that.

shame is not always an emotion that persuades people who are making a lot of money to stop.

It looks like we've got some consumers here that need protecting pretty badly, right? Probably millions of people.

That seems to me like fraud.

the issue of post-transaction marketing, data passing, free-to-pay conversions--I mean, that's all a fancy way of describing practices that are engaged in by people that ought to be ashamed of themselves.

you would always expect, especially on a reputable website, that that's not going to be shared with anybody, that that's protected.

the question in your mind would be: Why are you following me, number one? And number two, who are you selling the information to about where I went and what I did?

If you're involved in a big flood fight, I'll tell you, I know who you want on your side and that's the Corps of Engineers.

It's collaboration, and it's a way to get at collaboration. The worst thing you can have is a disaster of some sort, and people coming together for the first time to figure out what to do.

In smaller communities, very often the current value of a home is substantially less than the replacement cost.

But, there needs to be a local sponsor for that. Is that correct?

So, regarding the section 22 study, is that a study that is designed to lead to a conclusion of saying, 'Here are devices or protection approaches that might be used to give that region better protection?'