Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday July 21 2017, @02:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the 25,000-people-can't-all-be-wrong dept.

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.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:58AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:58AM (#542218)

    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)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @06:15AM (#542229) Journal

    Law by legislation is simply unilateral coercion.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:29AM (#542238)

      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)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @07:10AM (#542253) Journal

        One person cannot delegate another person's negotiations.

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:39AM (#542259)

          I'm glad you've finally admitted your intellectually bankrupt foundation.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @07:54AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @07:54AM (#542263) Journal

            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)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday July 21 2017, @06:35AM (#542240) Journal

    The only laws that actually matter are the contracts to which individuals explicitly agree.

    Law by legislation is simply unilateral coercion.

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:41AM (#542243)

      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

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday July 21 2017, @07:46PM (#542523) Journal

    Law by legislation is simply unilateral coercion.

    Only if you don't vote.