Skip to main content

Facebook Tries To Stall Privacy Shield Ruling Until GDPR Goes Into Effect

Recently, the Irish High Court referred a Privacy Shield, in which Facebook is involved, to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Facebook tried to block the case from reaching the CJEU, but the High Court denied Facebook’s request. The court also accused Facebook of using stalling tactics to attempt to make its violations moot, once the GDPR passes.

Facebook Defends Mass Surveillance

Like the Safe Harbor before it, the Privacy Shield agreement between the European Union (EU) and the U.S. has also been sent for review to the CJEU. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) believes that the Privacy Shield agreement may be inadequate in protecting EU citizens’ privacy rights.

American laws continue to allow the U.S. government to collect and search everyone’s data in bulk, including the data of foreigners. The recent FISA extension law even allows civil law enforcement agencies to scour through all the data passing through internet cables in the United States, without a warrant. Therefore, there seems to be a large chasm between what data protection is required for EU citizens by EU laws and what the U.S. laws allow its agencies to do with that data.

Instead of agreeing that U.S. laws don’t offer many protections for EU citizens’ data, Facebook defended the mass surveillance operations of the U.S. government as necessary for “national security” reasons.

Facebook Stalls Privacy Shield Lawsuit

After the Irish High Court denied Facebook’s decision to “stay” the reference to the CJEU, Facebook said that it would appeal the ruling to the Irish Supreme Court.

The High Court said that Facebook cannot rely on Irish national law to avoid a reference to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue cannot be appealed, as the High Court has the ability to reference cases to the CJEU at will.

Facebook also said that if the Supreme Court will not hear an appeal, then it will appeal the Irish Court of Appeals. The High Court then concluded that Facebook is purposefully trying to stall the reference to the CJEU, in order for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to go into effect and make the judgement on previous EU privacy laws moot.

Although this may be Facebook’s plan, it’s unlikely to work. The Privacy Shield agreement and the GDPR regulate different aspects of EU privacy law. Additionally, just because the GDPR goes into effect doesn’t necessarily mean the issue of U.S. mass surveillance of EU citizens’ data would be resolved--it can’t be, until U.S. laws change to accommodate the privacy protections required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights for EU citizens.

  • hotaru251
    Just make a law where crimes committed b4 a law protected it are still illegal?

    Or idk...if they keep refusing just see em as guilty and if they wanna refute it then they need to show up within a week.
    Reply
  • derekullo
    20936931 said:
    Just make a law where crimes committed b4 a law protected it are still illegal?

    Or idk...if they keep refusing just see em as guilty and if they wanna refute it then they need to show up within a week.

    That sounds very totalitarian lol.

    You can't knowingly commit a crime in the past if it wasn't a crime to begin with.

    Using that logic it would be possible to convict anyone of a crime based on what they did in the past regardless of if what they did was ever a crime to begin with.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)

    Both very important pages for determining what is a crime.




    Reply
  • Non-Euclidean
    20937015 said:
    20936931 said:
    Just make a law where crimes committed b4 a law protected it are still illegal?

    Or idk...if they keep refusing just see em as guilty and if they wanna refute it then they need to show up within a week.

    That sounds very totalitarian lol.

    You can't knowingly commit a crime in the past if it wasn't a crime to begin with.

    Using that logic it would be possible to convict anyone of a crime based on what they did in the past regardless of if what they did was ever a crime to begin with.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)

    Both very important pages for determining what is a crime.


    No it isn't.

    It "sounds" like you aren't interpreting the situation the way others are. In the exact opposite way in fact.

    Facebook wants to avoid punishment for breaking a law, because the law will be superceded and not in effect in the future.

    So its exactly the opposite of what your response is. You think you are clever postulating a pre-crime scenario. But it is totally inapplicable.

    Its not (necessarily) totalitarian to enforce a violation of a law that occurred even if the law was subsequently changed. It was still a violation when it happened. It may be petty and mean, but a crime was committed.

    Reply
  • Giroro
    20936931 said:
    Just make a law where crimes committed b4 a law protected it are still illegal?

    Or idk...if they keep refusing just see em as guilty and if they wanna refute it then they need to show up within a week.

    In America, Ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively make things that happened in the past illegal) are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
    I don't know how it works in Ireland.
    Reply
  • doverm
    In America, people dont read before commenting...
    Reply