Breach of a consent decree is not necessarily criminal, as far as I can tell. And even if it was, it definitely wouldn't represent a crime on the part of any FB engineers.
Violation of a consent decree can result in criminal contempt-of-court charges. See 18 U.S.C. section 401 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401). See also United States v. Schine, 125 F. Supp. 734 (W.D.N.Y. 1954).
Sure, it can result in a criminal charge, but it is not in and of itself a crime. So, investigating them for breach of consent decree is not a 'criminal investigation'.
Bluntly speaking, you are totally, completely wrong. You can't imprison someone in the U.S. unless that person is reasonably suspected of a crime or has committed one. The code in question allows for such imprisonment - that's why it's called "criminal contempt."
> You can't imprison someone in the U.S. unless that person is reasonably suspected of a crime or has committed one
I didn't say otherwise.
> The code in question allows for such imprisonment - that's why it's called "criminal contempt."
I don't disagree. What I said is that breach of a consent decree is not necessarily a case of criminal contempt. And whether or not it does rise to the level of criminality will be determined by the judge, not the investigators. Therefore, referring to it as a 'criminal investigation' does not make sense if the investigation is strictly investigating breach of a consent decree.
Agreed, but it seems like pointless hair-splitting to me. One could reasonably still call it a criminal investigation even if it leads only to a civil contempt finding. Many situations are investigated as possible crimes even if no activity rising to the level of a crime is found.
Ya, I take your point, but I don't think it really is hair splitting unless one of the following is true:
A) The base rate of consent-decree breaches resulting in a criminal contempt charge is high, which I very much doubt that it is.
B) There is some information about this particular case that makes a criminal contempt charge likely. This could be true, but the article makes no attempt to demonstrate it.
Failing one of these things being true, I don't think it's fair to refer to it, at this stage, as a 'criminal investigation'.
Under the Federal Wiretap Act[1] intentionally using a device to intercept an electronic communication is a crime. Since the NYT article indicates the investigation is focused on device manufacturers and the article notes the devices may have facilitated the sharing of user data without consent this is the most likely potential charge.
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
5th of May last year in many places and in every other place in the world where you manage to convince a judge that it is. It's easier when there are explicit laws on the books.
