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

5

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.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Contributor

Lucian Armasu is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He covers software news and the issues surrounding privacy and security.

  • 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