4 ms·
Charged with what specifically under what precedent? The USA is (supposedly) a nation of law. If Zuck broke an existing law with precedent for those kind of ter
by hodder 8y ago
Charged with what specifically under what precedent? The USA is (supposedly) a nation of law. If Zuck broke an existing law with precedent for those kind of terms then that would make sense. If you are simply angry at legislators for not protecting you with adequate law, your issue is not with Zuck. You are simply angry at him. If you simply want him "made an example of", I hope you think of the repercussions to legal framework of the nation.
- drjesusphd 8y agoFacebook is an unprecedented company with unprecedented access to users' private information that committed an unprecedented breach of contract. There's no reason why a judge should rely on precedent.
- hodder 8y agoJudges use historical cases as guidance. To say there is no precedent is misguided. This would still be the case. More importantly, judges do not pass legislation. They adjudicate law.
- drjesusphd 8y agoCan you name a similar breach that happened in the past and was adjudicated by the court? If not, there is no judicial precedent, by definition.
- Phlarp 8y agoNot at all. The article says "criminal investigation" but after some cursory discussion of a grand jury and EDNY they pivot to talking about the FTC and civil punishment. I am not a lawyer, let alone a federal prosecutor. However, it does appear that actual federal prosecutors are suspicious enough that a crime took place to take it to a grand jury.