a violation requires a recipient and there was a knowing and willing recipient in this case and we think the statute covers them it look to the legislative history in the definition the definition was purposely left open ended by congress in the just like that history is clear that it was purposely open and said it was open ended with respect to what type of data you can use to identify a specific person and that person viewing history but it wasn't open ended that it it is targeted at protecting the identification of a particular person i think what my colleague is asking about is how does this suite that your words identify a particular person group of the material you've identified the vice a group of the items you've identified identify a group of people but not a particular person and if on misunderstanding twenty your question i think that's what we're trying to determine is how does that how does any of that i do with a particular person immediately identifies that particular internet user and if i if i could get to the word in question is identifiable and there's a able means capable rob it speaks to the potential of information not just that it is an identifier there's a difference between an identifier and identifiable and this court recognizes that that distinction in rule one hundred  thirteen point twelve this court requires parties to remove personal identifiers from pleadings those identifiers include financial accounting permission and home addresses and the identifier she used that issue in this case are we've alleged that authorized taking the right track information from children we think that taking something from a troll or there's another word for it scott that death against children is something that a reasonable person could find to be highly offensive and there are three cases in which authorize taking an persistent identifiers of the type in this case are can do an address a phone number a social security number in that they connect a particular person with particular activities second is because unique persistent identifiers are used by companies to that particular person behind keyboards the fact that google allegedly has this access harvest information is sufficient precedent clued that this makes these categories information  that the such is focused on the disclosure of personally identifiable information and congress was concerned with the ability of companies to create these profiles you can see in the senate report senator leahy focusing on the ability of companies to profile a person  they buy the programs they watch so is the ability of companies to create these profiles based on identify identifiable information that can ring the person to the can connect a particular user with information that to identify someone who was not enough for your honor and this brings me to to my final two points one is that they did in this case was not anonymous and that is why the lower court fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the data and the definition of that exist for the purpose of directing information and data packets through the complex infrastructure of the an internet that information is not intended to identify any person it is not alleged to have actually identified a new person and we had confirmation of that  this morning and indeed there is no allegation that any human being ever even sees this information laser on this information this is information that is traded between computers for the purpose of retrieving content from a web from a web server and displaying it on a computer screen you can like to come in comics personal information from counsel civically says do not use your real name it right it is that it's a fanciful name that is specifically intended not to be identified and the only other two pieces of information that are alleged to be collected by viacom here of violating that no your honor i did the viacom web site does not indicate in any way what that information is gathered for but i think the fundamental purpose the fundamental point here is again  prohibits with regard to the new jersey statute or whether the information whether your conduct here is i mean by consequence that with highly offensive there is a screen shot here that is is provided in one of your pleading information is personally identifiable information even though the relevant statutes here do not define it as personally identifiable information in your own i think on this point the children's online privacy protection act is very relevant congress specifically addressed this question of children's privacy on the internet and congress passed a statute specifically directed to that congress then gave federal regulatory authority to the federal trade commission to birthdays and gender were not personal information under so a federal agency had specifically looked at these issues and it clued it that that should not be considered personal information so viacom was entirely accurate and truthful in saying we do not collect personal information because the statutory regime and the regulatory regime which again was specifically intended to address these issues said that that was not  honor very briefly i would like to make one final point that actually it is unrelated but i did want to bring to the court's attention on page thirty seven of our brief we argued that the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims if the court dismissed all the federal law claims after reviewing google cooky and after further consideration we believe the it would likely be diversity terrorist action over any state law claims under cafe in any identical often good begum there's no claim there either that brings us to the intrusion upon seclusion there are three elements under new jersey law there none of those elements have been stated in this case as against google first there are no intrusion claimed held that it had been plausible allegations inferrable from the allegations in that complaint that there was a statement that was  intrusion so i don't think that anyone would quibble with the fact that that the cookies are placed intentionally at an automated system but via the allegation is that viacom permitted google to do so and i don't think there can be an inference of any but there is nothing under google cookie that could lead to to a conclusion that there's anything tortious there cooking made very clear that there was placing a cookie and preserving advertising in connection with that is not enough to state an int hours i think it does and i think it guides it to the same conclusion i just articulated if you look at state versus read for example thinkers read addresses a quote a question that we've touched upon a little bit this morning around ip addresses and it talks about a limited informational privacy right under the new jersey constitution which is not a claim asserted in this case but a limited privacy right in an ip address but only in the context of state government told requests to i internet service providers because those interests providers have the information too on mask what the ip addresses so the actual privacy right is in the subscriber information that sitting with the i s p there is a recognition in that case quite quite clearly articulated that the ip address actually flows around the internet to direct traffic and in the hands of all of the other people it's blowing it's actually not meaningful to uncover anyone's identity can we go back to your we were talking about the first elements of each reason clean and the fact that was it right or not there was an intrusion and i believe he said that the cookies were placed with viacom's permission but the person complaining about the intrusion isn't via co also that dot com wasn't even itself special but this was one of many websites and that this was how third party advertising was done and if this is google's business who was in the business of doing this we were certainly entitled to rely upon the permission of the sites that it it deals with for permission to act and if a site says here you are permitted to place a cookie and operate it that is the that is the appropriate and that google is a member of the interactive advertising their help it was not person information what the with the interactive advertising board regulation says or commitment says is that google will comply with capa and back in twenty twelve at the time these complaints are rose didn't apply to entities like google it was amended and in the middle of twenty thirteen it did apply and there's no allegation in the case that cop was ever violated and there couldn't be any such allegation conflate some very different concepts but there's no allegation of wrongdoing by google in this case whatsoever and this case is nothing like the google cookie case in that regard thank you mr well thank you very much f best at the end of the second one where he said look plaintiffs amended complaint is just trying to put square pegs into round holes and they may or may not be raising issues that merit legislative and executive attention but they don't have a legal you ought to amended the definition of personally identifiable information in that to include ip addresses and account identifiers now whether or not that was a good idea and epic obviously believes that it was congress didn't take them up on that suggestion there is a policy tradeoff here many of the content providers can provide these videos and other content online for free we're right on the revenue they get from this tailored advertising in order to be able to offer that content for free and think about how many videos we watch online for education for enrichment and for entertainment and congress had to face that tradeoff now epix thinks that you should have here they want to sacrifice some informational access in order to get a little bit more of what we think is valuable privacy and that may or may not be a difficult question but as judge shuster said it's a question that belongs before deceit in the case law between a district court decision that goes their way and a circuit court decision that goes the defendants way when congress amended it did not expand the definition of a videotape or service provider to reach recipients of information as opposed to those who knowingly disclose we haven't i'm not aware of why congress did or didn't do that but they did not expand the definition you know way that would reach the googles of the world i mean personally identifiable information problem there are certainly cases where you've got to take a stance you design for one problem and deal with new concerns that sit within the language that the chamber with and it is a very rigid in the practice of courts world as i understand it the district court resolve that issue against them and that's not the primary issue on appeal i think that there is a very difficult question there about whether these online videos are videotapes within the meaning or similar audience visual materials within the meaning of the that's not the primary issue here and the parties have been briefed i do think it's a serious question ok thank you very much mr while mr lawrence maybe you can talk about that their representation that biocon made on a website direction to the grown ups that we don't collect any personal information about your kids i believe this is from recrimination that was collected well there's the birthday and there's the gender in addition to that your honor there's the the suite as i've called it of information as well and i think to get because you asked about what personal information is collect i think the most important point i want to make about the day is that every federal fact finder to have taken evidence and heard from experts on this issue personally identifiable information has concluded that the type of data disclosed in this case which financial modernization act and topic the decision between those statutes and this one is that congress decided they were going to protect privacy by creating a regulatory regime where they put personally identifiable information th shouldn't we presume from that that congress intended to hold within itself the authority to change the definition you know they left the definition open to keep pace with technological change instead of telling american consumers say have to go petition the executive branch to protect their privacy rights they gave american consumers the right to bring a claim and federal court and they left that definition open to keep pace with technology and i would beg you to read the for all legislative history because there's  able really does mean something different than the use identifier or identifies and the district court held that you have to have data that identifies in and of itself that's not what the statute says twenty that's that's correct i think that's correct assertion it's not just google that received this information who happens to have probably come on just market share but what about the other entities that receive this kind of information to side with here's here's the point on that is that the defendant viacom and other p t s case can actually disclose this information but all they they have to do it in a certain way they have to get informed written consent there is a limiting princip p p a it's called consent and that's all they have to do and that's what's what the congress in two thousand and twelve because they knew it applied to the internet in their business model and got an easier way to obtain consent over the internet netflix doesn't do this either there are because they understand that this applies to the internet