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.
Related Stories
While most of the newspapers were distracting the public with the antics of Mark Zuckerberg, a European Union High Court raised 11 important questions regarding privacy (warning for PDF) that will affect large data-gathering operations like Facebook. The 11 questions have been passed upwards to the most senior EU court and are based on a current case started by Max Schrems.
The Irish High Court referral, published on Thursday and due to be submitted to the ECJ by the end of April, stems from a case brought by an Austrian privacy activist against the methods used by Facebook to store user data on U.S. servers following revelations in 2013 of mass U.S. surveillance practices.
[...] The High Court's five-page referral asks the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) if the Privacy Shield - under which companies certify they comply with EU privacy law when transferring data to the United States - does in fact mean that the United States "ensures an adequate level of protection".
Opponents can still appeal the court's referral any time until the end of the month. The proposed Privacy Shield legislation is the EU's follow up framework to cover transfers of personal data to outside the EU. It is being written as a replacement for the now invalidated International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles. The Safe Harbour agreement was brought down, after an earlier two-year lawsuit (Case C-362/14) by Max Schrems, because of its inadequate protections in light of the Snowden revelations.
From Reuters : EU's top court asked to probe Facebook U.S. data transfers
The Irish Times : High Court sets out 11 questions for ECJ on EU-US data transfers
Ars Technica : Facebook data transfers to be examined by EU court, Irish judge rules
See also an intial analysis, http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sh2/PA-ref.pdf
Earlier on SN:
Austria Resident Max Schrems is Organizing a Privacy-Oriented Class-Action Suit Against Facebook
On its Way: A Google-Free, NSA-Free IT Infrastructure for Europe
Facebook is trying to block Schrems II privacy referral to EU top court. In an attempt to get Ireland's Supreme Court to decide about accepting their appeal, their lawyer has asked for the referral to the EU court to be delayed while at the same time asking for an unusal accelerated referral to Ireland's Supreme Court.
Facebook’s lawyers are attempting to block a High Court decision in Ireland, where its international business is headquartered, to refer a long-running legal challenge to the bloc’s top court.
[...] The case relates to a complaint filed by privacy campaigner and lawyer Max Schrems regarding a transfer mechanism that’s currently used by thousands of companies to authorize flows of personal data on EU citizens to the US for processing. Though Schrems was actually challenging the use of so-called Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) by Facebook, specifically, when he updated an earlier complaint on the same core data transfer issue — which relates to US government mass surveillance practices, as revealed by the 2013 Snowden disclosures — with Ireland’s data watchdog.
Also at Reuters : Facebook bids to keep data privacy case from EU's top court.
Earlier on SN:
High Court Sets Out 11 Questions for ECJ on EU-US Data Transfers
Austria Resident Max Schrems is Organizing a Privacy-Oriented Class-Action Suit Against Facebook
EU Top Court Rules Safe Harbour Treaty Invalid
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:31AM
Kill Facebook and Twitter and LinkedIn and YouTube and WhatsApp and Snapchat and GitHub and SoylentNews.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:48AM (21 children)
If you don't like what Facebook does, then don't associate with Facebook.
What's wrong with you Statists? Why must you always run to Nanny State when you don't like something? Coercive thugs.
(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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @04:31AM (3 children)
Because, unlike the "libertarian societies", they decided to pay their government enough taxes to do exactly that - protect their privacy. Their democratic choice of a government, really.
You don't like it, then don't live in Austria. If Facebook doesn't like it, then FB is free to cease doing business in Austria.
It's just that simple, so better stop whinging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:28AM (2 children)
I think you don't know how taxes work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:50AM
That's irrelevant to the matter at hand.
If you think you know better, present your arguments (thumbs up, though, for admitting a dose of subjectivity in your assertion, instead of just tabling them as "the absolute truth").
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 21 2017, @06:00AM
I think I can read and understand sentences such in TFA [bloomberg.com] as:
which I interpret as "some Austrians' tax money were used to pay for the representatives of the Austrian government that appeared in EU court on Wednesday".
Is my understanding wrong? If so, how?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 21 2017, @10:04AM
The problem with Facebook is that government agencies and corporations put their customer support on this social media. Twitter etc is not better. The base problem is that corporate not offending anyone but spying everything is not acceptable for government and customer support.
In addition there's the scooping up of photos and phone books.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:25AM (8 children)
You fuckers mod down as "Troll" even those users who legitimately contribute their own thoughts.
Fuck. You.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday July 21 2017, @06:40AM (2 children)
If you don't like how SoylentNews treats your comments then don't post comments to SoylentNews.
See? I can do it, too.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:43AM (1 child)
Try again, fool.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:54AM
Why so butthurt?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:15AM (3 children)
That's because is there closest to "-1 debunked" as there is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:43AM
Do tell.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday July 21 2017, @01:48PM (1 child)
Not really the same - a troll isn't honestly representing their own views in a well-intended submission. Disagree and Overrated fit better.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday July 21 2017, @05:08PM
You can't use overrated until it's already been moderated. Haven't tried it with disagree.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @04:00PM
No one can stop user modding, so deal with it. I've found that often people will correct bad mods, if no one is helping your post then maybe it is time to consider that your ideas are limited or badly presented. Complaining that people don't like your comments does you no good.