and also in other cases that i read they talk about distribution all these different terms have been used as far as i guess getting out there and someone else now it struck me that one of your ideas is that force is not a publication insured in that case was that there had to be private information disclosed and that if there wasn't and so they said look it was partly disseminated that's all we need for publica comes by for me ticked off just a cynic but you also recognize that there was no definition of the term publication but rather merely a recognition that one of the calming meanings of the time could include the communication or some nation of information to the public that's not stated only includes that but rather that one form of communication is recognised as a publication nature of the privacy violation ok so the t c p violation the supreme correctness was an invasion of the privacy by intrusion so seclusion invasion right that necessary element of the type of the violation of privacy but then if you also read at page three hundred and sixty eight the supreme court recognize a separate type of invasion of privacy and as envisioned by privacy by disclosure just disclosure of private facts as in this incredibles that pavlik revelation of private information about another in an objectionable manner again it's exactly the type of violation that we have here to term publication because it really pressed said examine the entire policy provision we have to do that even though issuers drafty are we still have to look at that it would be there would be m just since it issued its policy to christian on two thousand and fifteen as it added an additional endorsement to his policy to specifically mention spitball they were quoting him distribution of information or collection of how in valley forge there is a very different privacy claim at issue and that's what led the supreme court there to focus on the definitions of the term publication that fit with the claim at issue in that case it was a direct defendant to plaintiff communication and so that's why it looked bad rather not that secure communication was also part of the broader to the public dissemination such that it could trigger a publication coverage i think is not that the starting position of every party in that and noted that there is no illinois cases dealing with this publication issue but suggested that the current work to that opinions of other states and i recommend that the crew do exactly that one place you can look under the exact standard that this court's required to follow when to terminate a reasonable person in the position of christian attack and what introvert the term publication and the policy on the place occurred to look at the park university quote used in this case that the seven circuit used in defender security that the some of the other courts have used as well and found that the true publication from an ordinary common sense meaning just means the release of information or policy uses the exact same terms or written publication of material to describe both defamation related injuries and privacy related injuries and for that reason because there no specific definition for the term as you noted just as connor's there's no reason to think that the definition or the scope of publication should vary from running coverage provision to the next so that's another reason why this court should find  the only way that you can read it is by looking top to bottom and noting that the entire thing is consistent when you talk with counsel for krishna ten he suggested that the use of the the that's a statute that governs the mails and it gives you a catchall term which the player should interpret as consistent with the other items in the list and so the question that clears up with is whether or not the bit of fits with th statutes given the exclusion in the same way that the t c p a and can spam act here and for the reason i just said stated it does not because it doesn't say anything about emails phone calls faxes or any other method of sending time to take a look at it and i believe that you will find that this dispersal doesn't need to be accidental it just needs to be the disposal in conjunction with you know that the failure comply to safeguard state it has to be accidental and i believe it sufficiently alleged