SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Max Schrems is hoping for approval from the EU Court of Justice to bring an Austrian-style collective suit against Facebook. Unlike the earlier case in Ireland which dealt primarily with US mass surveillance, this Austria-based case focuses on the commercial misuse of personal data by Facebook. The lawsuit addresses alleged violations of privacy by Facebook through, for starters, its misuse of personal data and tracking of users on external pages. He is backed by his earlier case that the user data of EU citizens was not sufficiently protected when shipped to the U.S.
- Facebook Challenged by Activist Who Broke EU-U.S. Data Pact
- Austrian activist, 25,000 supporters seek right to bring class-action suit against Facebook
- Facebook Ireland fights Max Schrems over class action suit
An opinion is expected by November 7th from Advocate General Michal Bobek, a court advisor, the final judgment by the end of the year.
The case is C-498/16, Schrems.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Austria Resident Max Schrems is Organizing a Privacy-Oriented Class-Action Suit Against Facebook
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 32 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:57AM (15 children)
If you don't like what Facebook does, then block all of Facebook's surveillance and never leave your house. You can never leave your house because someone might snap a photo of you (intentionally or otherwise) and then upload the picture to Facebook where facial recognition will be done on the photo and a shadow profile will be built about you. There's nothing you can do about that because you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public places, even though the world is very different now from how it was several decades ago when mass surveillance technology was not feasible. But yeah, keep applying those outdated standards, US courts.
It's not so easy to escape from a monstrous surveillance engine merely by not using it and blocking some domains.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @04:13AM
Way ahead of you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @04:15AM (13 children)
If your solution to a problem is "Well, we'll threaten people with the coercion of the State!", then you've already lost.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @04:34AM (11 children)
Lost... mmm... what exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:26AM (10 children)
For example, it's not the case that government forced white people to end racial segregation, but rather it's the case that white people forced government to end racial segregation.
Government cannot lead society; government can only follow society.
If your solution is to use the State's inherent coercion, then you've already lost the argument. You've begun to engage in "Do as I say" coercion rather than "Do as we agreed" cooperation, the latter of which is the only sustainable position.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @05:45AM (9 children)
What argument is that? Who is/are actually arguing?
The way I see, they are using their laws (no government involved, yet) against an entity who decided to ignore the agreement with them. And when I'm speaking about agreement, I assume:
1. you refer to FB's "Terms and Condition" as an agreement...
2. ... which agreement is already understood as valid only within the bounds of the local law - that's the rule no matter which country on this world. Would the local law say something else than this agreement, then whatever in the FB's "Terms and Conditions" contradicts the local law becomes invalid and potentially exposes FB to law suits if FB continues to think their terms are the absolute agreement.
If FB wants to do business in such environ, then it's the responsibility of FB to take care about compliance with the local law, not the consumers of its services.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:58AM (8 children)
The only laws that actually matter are the contracts to which individuals explicitly agree.
Law by legislation is simply unilateral coercion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @06:15AM (4 children)
Your opinion, mate. Many chose to delegate the negotiations of agreement to the state and are happy with it. Are you asserting this type of delegation is not among their rights?
Also, seems that an entire world is not aligned with your opinion, so... what are you going to do? Waste your and our time with an opinion which extremely likely is inconsequential?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:29AM (3 children)
One person cannot delegate another person's negotiations.
Come on, man; you're smart enough to realize that you're advocating Tyranny.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @07:10AM (2 children)
But I can delegate my negotiation rights to some organization, right?
And I can agree to pay that organization to negotiate on my behalf, as well as provide other services, right?
And I can agree that organization will have some power over my choices, within the limits of a constitution, right?
There's no "natural right" that's impaired until now, agree?
The funny things start to happen when more than 50% of the population of a country agrees to do the same and the resulted organization (still representing private citizens) needs to negotiate with the minority.
(have you finished reading "The social contract" [wikipedia.org] yet? Has some pretty weird ideas, like the comparison between the cost of governance in a direct democracy vs monarchy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:39AM (1 child)
I'm glad you've finally admitted your intellectually bankrupt foundation.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @07:54AM
1. do my questions lose any pertinence because I asked about the "Social contract"? If so, how come? (if you think it does, for whatever reason, feel free to ignore my reference).
2. I admitted to nothing, not even of having a foundation, much less an intellectual one. I didn't even admit of having any intellect! I only asked if you finished reading the "Social Contract". No motivation offered or implied, may as well be just from curiosity - what makes you think otherwise. So, well... have you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Friday July 21 2017, @06:35AM (1 child)
Well, I never signed a contract with you (or anyone else) to not kill you. Sure, there are laws against it, but you just declared them as irrelevant. Therefore I conclude it would be OK with you if I just killed you, right?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:41AM
WHY? Clearly, "Therefore I conclude it would be OK with you if I just killed you" does not follow.
Try again, sloppy thinker.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 21 2017, @07:46PM
Law by legislation is simply unilateral coercion.
Only if you don't vote.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday July 21 2017, @06:12AM
If your solution is "the average person will make intelligent decisions in their best interest as a consumer", then you are simply out of touch with reality. Sorry to break it to you sweetheart, but anarcho-capitalism does not work because human nature just isn't suited for it. We've all been there with the whole "if everyone in the world was like me then this perfect world order will totally solve all of our problems".
Unfortunately, in the real world apathy is the strongest political force. If your "perfect" political system is not resistant to apathy, it's worthless unworkable trash. Maybe when our glorious AI overlords replace us, it will work for them. However, it will not work for us.