A computer user who alleged that an advertising network breached US privacy laws did not prove she had suffered sufficient damages for those charges to be further examined, a US court has ruled. Sonal Bose claimed that Interclick's use of Flash cookies and "history sniffing" code "invaded her privacy, misappropriated personal …
this title is private
A sad day for privacy law in the states. Not only do they have *government* "by the rich for the rich", the judges now interpret laws in favour of corporations as long as they don't rip you off by more than 5 grand at a time. This ruling will be used as legal precedent by any corporation abusing your privacy as long as they don't cause more than $5K to any individual.
Maybe voyeurism with pictures is now also legal as long as the victim doesn't suffer financial loss.
Vaguely reminiscent of the decision here in the UK not to prosecute BT and Phorm "as there was no criminal intent", despite the whole set-up seemingly breaking the law. "Oh, I just killed someone by running them over with my car whilst drunk but I didn't mean to, so that makes me innocent." or " I stabbed someone but didn't push the knife right in, so that also makes me innocent of any crime". Poppycock. If it's illegal, prosecution should follow - not have judges say it's only a small digression, so it doesn't count.
In the McKinnon case did the US authorities not claim the cost of investigating the intrusion and installing security measures to prevent any further intrusion as part of the fiscal damage incurred? Would the cost of hiring the Stanford experts to determine the extent of the unauthorised interference with the claimants computer, and advice on measures to prevent further occurances not be considered "damages" in this case?
The RIAA et al prosecutions were allowed to claim putative losses without having to establish actual lost sales. So should the plaintiff here be able to claim the costs of preventing possible future unwanted interference with her computers?
The real problem with dismissing this case without considering whether a trespass has occurred is that it gives the perpetrator a green light to continue infringing without hindrance. No order to cease, and no contempt.
... and confidentiality is priceless to some people, particularly so when privacy and confidentiality is protected by law.
Among those people the Judiciary attach a high value to their privacy and confidentiality, and enforce it using the law.
However your privacy and confidentiality is worthless to the Judiciary, corporations, and governments.
What is "enough harm"?
Prosecuting Apple because it's software stores tracking info on *your* device is OK, but prosecuting a company that tracks you on *their* servers is not worth the effort.
Can we *please* have judges that actually understand the technology they are ruling about?
Of course you cannot prove what damage has been done to you, as they are processing your tracking data on *their* servers.
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series