Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ONLINE PRIVACY ADVOCATE Max Schrems has told his court action against Facebook in Vienna that he was forced to take the action there in order to avoid ‘the madness of Irish courts’.
At a three hour preliminary hearing to the case proper, 27-year-old law graduate Schrems replied “I wouldn’t be done in 25 years, it’s madness,” when questioned as to why he had dropped his initial actions in Ireland.
I thought it could drag on for years without achieving anything.
The purpose of the preliminary hearing was to establish whether or not the Austrian court has jurisdiction to judge the class action given Facebook has its European headquarters in Dublin.
Schrems’ €10 million class action suit has been joined by 25,000 other complainants, seven of whom were represented at the Vienna hearing. Should the action be successful each complainant will be granted a ‘nominal’ compensation of roughly €500.
A further 55,000 complainants sit on a waiting list to join Schrems’ actions further along the line. Via his group, Europe vs. Facebook, the privacy crusader encourages people to join his actions while updating them on his progress.
A member of Facebook since 2008, the Austrian is alleging that Facebook’s privacy standards are in breach of EU data protection law.
Schrems’ battle for his ‘fundamental rights’ is set in relief to the revelation by American National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden that American security services routinely receive users’ information from Facebook and other media companies.
Schrems had previously filed a number of claims with the Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland in 2011, but had retracted all but one in order to pursue his class action suit in the Austrian capital, where he lives.
The sole remaining Ireland-based case has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), whose ruling on same will be a ‘landmark decision’ which will ‘shape the fundamentals of privacy law in Europe for decades to come’ according to Digital Rights Ireland spokesman TJ McIntyre.
If the ECJ rules in favour of Schrems it would be a ‘potential near-disaster’ for tech firms like Facebook, Google and Microsoft who rely so heavily on European users’ personal data according to US academic Henry Farrell.
Farrell says that companies such as Facebook had so far chosen to set up in Ireland for tax reasons and “because they see Irish privacy officials as more flexible than their mainland European counterparts.”
European Facebook users agree terms with the company’s Irish entity when they sign up for the social network.
A positive result for Schrems at the ECJ could see American-European data relations thrown into disarray with the two global behemoths forced to redesign their privacy regulations in order to be compliant with the legal precedent set down by the European court.
… but will the banks pass on the rate cut?
Yes they will. They must increase the rate first for a few weeks before the cut kicks in reducing the rate to the same level it was last month. Only difference is banks get to borrow cheaper money.
Have not our banks already announced an increase?
so far AIB has , not sure about the rest of them
Watch ebs and their mates will bang up their rates again once this happens, absolutely sickening
What’s a tracker mortgage!
I don’t understand APR
A rate cut will hit tracker mortgages pushing them further below cost which our banks will have to compensate for with more current account fees, higher variable rate mortgages and will further increase the time until the taxpayer sees any bailout money… It’s giving with one hand and taking away with the other at this point.
But doesn’t it mean the rate is lowered for our banks paying back loans to the ECB? Maybe I’m wrong on this….
That was my understanding, although happy to be corrected.
Funny that got my letter today from ebs saying rate has gone from 4.33 to 4.58 . This country can go and f€€k itself .
Here’s a novel idea; the ECB should keep printing money; but rather than using it to shore up structural problems ( which doesn’t cause inflation ), they should print enough to maintain a EZ inflation rate of just over 2%. Inflation is too low in the EZ, it is hampering consumer spending and the probability of growth, and isn’t regulating inflation to stay at the most beneficial level one of the main functions of a Central Bank?
Inflation is TOO LOW???
You have to be kidding me. You must only care about the bankers and elite, not the poor and middle class.
Disgusting
Stop reading those Keynesian/Neoliberal econ books.
@ Michael – get away from the “me too”-ism and look at the bigger picture.
In times of very low inflation, there are very few incentives to spend your money, and a load of incentives to hoard your money. Normally, in times of low inflation, it makes far more sense to buy on credit rather than with cash.
Currently, however, there is a very understandable aversion to credit, both from people who would normally seek credit, and, more importantly, from those who supply credit.
So, low inflation + lack of credit sources = economic stagnation.
A higher level of inflation ( not a high level, but higher than the disastrously low level we have no ) would have the dual effect of getting money moving and reducing the weight of the debt.
High inflation will benefit debt-laden countries.
Absolutely none of the above has to do with Keynes, so I’ve no idea where you pulled that out of ( although I could be crude and suggest from where you pulled it ).
Low inflation is good for some ie people on fixed incomes, reduced pensions, reduced social welfare, those who have lost on bank shares and property. High inflation is good for the retail trade etc. Lets. keep inflation under control for the sake of those less fortunate with limited resources because they will suffer the most in times of high inflation. There has to be another solution to the problems being experienced by the retail trade which will be solved by growth and rising employment levels.
No inflation? Ok, let’s keep trying our current deflation approach. See you in a few million years when you’ve got that sorted.
@ Maurice – to be fair, we’re not talking about having high inflation. Two per cent is not high. While inflation would damage many people’s finances in one respect, I do believe a lot of the damage would be offset by the benefits in he mid-term.
As it is, we’ve seen a rise in the cost of living at the same time as the rate of inflation has been dropping, so, in this case, cost of living and inflation are not directly in proportion to each other.
Low inflation is a kiss of death for growth, and growth, including the jobs that go with it, what we desperately need.
Much as it makes me squeamish to agree with Censored, he’s on the money with his comment.
@ Censored – don’t worry, I won’t be making a habit of it :-)
So the answer to my original question is yes. I’ll use isms in context like I always have.
I don’t need to hear regurgitated rubbish from Krugman anymore please.
Tell me why deflation is a bad thing? Because it strengthens the value of money? Because it gives people induced incomes a chance? Why must we always crush the poorer amongst us?
You’ll come back at me with some academic answer, but the truth is that you logic is what is getting us deeper into this mess. 2007 is going to happen again soon
@ Michael – you’re a bit of a strange bird. You name-drop academic economists when it’s irrelevant, and then dismiss “academic”replies. Seems to be a low self-esteem issue going on.
I wrote above why I think low inflation is dangerous and a higher rate of inflation would be beneficial. You’re asking for an answer, but you don’t ask a question, so my original comments still stand.
Chucking insults and being snotty does not a convincing economic argument make. Maybe actually read up a little on the economists and economic movements you name drop?
Already have mortgage going up 40 euro a month from June
should legislate on a max difference between variable /tracker…at the moment people are paying up to 4or 5 points over.2 should be about fair..
what ya think.
When did the cost of living steadily decline? I must have missed that **RAGE**
have your say