Comments on: Pre-Holiday Behavioral Targeting Update http://lunchpail.knotice.com/2008/11/24/preholiday-behavioral-targeting-update/ Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:59:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: joe malley http://lunchpail.knotice.com/2008/11/24/preholiday-behavioral-targeting-update/#comment-338 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:33:01 +0000 http://knoticelunchpail.wordpress.com/?p=909#comment-338 josh:

Sorry I was just having fun. In response i note the following:

1) I know one of ththe plaintiff counsel very well, hint!

2) Plaintiff disclosed,so you are speaking of not knowing all the defendants.

3) 6 states, not 5

stay in contact.

]]> By: Josh Gordon http://lunchpail.knotice.com/2008/11/24/preholiday-behavioral-targeting-update/#comment-337 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:23:07 +0000 http://knoticelunchpail.wordpress.com/?p=909#comment-337 Hi Joe,

Thanks for the comment.

The Defendants have not yet been disclosed. From reading a variety of sources I can tell you they are in five states. They allege that two Federal and two California state laws were violated. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Federal) and California laws (the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Computer Crime Law (California).

The suit includes NebuAd and 26 of its ISP partners.

The California law adds another interesting dimension to this. Do states dare have different privacy laws? If they do, how does that change the way technology is used? Does a state law become a de facto Federal law because of the limitations specific to the state?

Here’s some background.

]]> By: joe malley http://lunchpail.knotice.com/2008/11/24/preholiday-behavioral-targeting-update/#comment-336 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:45:21 +0000 http://knoticelunchpail.wordpress.com/?p=909#comment-336 josh:

great article, but who filed the suit?

]]>