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.
Updated 3.45pm
A HIGH COURT judge has referred a case concerning Facebook’s involvement with PRISM to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The case, which involves the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s decision not to investigate Facebook over its involvement with PRISM, the surveillance operation ran by the US’ National Security Agency (NSA), will stand adjourned until a number of issues relating to the case are clarified by the ECJ.
Judge Gerard Hogan decided to uphold a decision made by the Data Protection Commissioner Billy Hawkes not to investigate complaints made against Facebook.
The ECJ ruling will also have an effect on other US companies involved in PRISM such as Apple, Google and Yahoo, which also have offices in Ireland.
In a statement, Max Schrems, who is a member of Europe vs Facebook and made the complaint, said the decision was the best outcome they could have hoped for.
“We did not prepare for a direct reference to the ECJ, but this is the best outcome we could have wished for. We will not study the judgement in details and will take the next steps as soon as possible.
Schrems sought a judicial review of a decision made by Hawkes to not investigate complaints he had made against Facebook.
Schrems was concerned about the transfer of data to the US, which he argued that European’s data was further forwarded to the NSA for mass surveillance of Europeans.
However, the commissioner declined to pursue an investigation under Section 10 of the Data Protection Acts, 1988 and 2003, which allows him to decide that a matter doesn’t require a formal investigation by the office.
This was down to the European Commission’s ‘Safe Harbour’ decision, a process which requires US companies to comply with EU directive on the protection of personal data.
Hawkes’ decision was upheld by Justice Gerard Hogan, who said that the Data Protection Commissioner had correctly interpreted the agreement, signed by the EU and US in 2000.
The Safe Harbour agreement permitted the exchange of certain types of data between the two.
The High Court said that the Safe Harbour directive formed “the nub” of the issue for the Data Commissioner and backed his decision.
Justice Hogan said that Hawkes was bound by a “community finding” that says that the adequacy of data protection be examined in the country the data is being transferred to.
The community finding in question was, as we have already seen, to the effect that the US does provide adequate data protection for data subjects in respect of data handled or processed by firms (such as Facebook Ireland and Facebook) which operate the Safe Harbour regime.
He noted that the Safe Harbour deal was made pre-September 11 and said it may be a relic of a “more innocent age”.
Originally posted 1.34pm.
Additional reporting by Paul Hosford.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Couldn’t they roll out just hiding Instagram altogether?
@GrahamMManning: and hide YouSnapTweetFace in the process too.
@GrahamMManning: They already did. It’s called ignoring. But that wouldn’t allow you post an unwitty comment desperate for thumbs up. Oh, the irony.
@Dave Harris: on the money.
@Dave Harris: savage!!
@Dave Harris: would you like a saucer of milk?
Accordion to scientists, 98% of Instagram users are unlikely to notice it, when random musical instruments are inserted into sentences.
@Paraic: change the word scientists to ‘boffins’ and you’ve got yourself a career in journalism
@BarronVonVaderHam: Indeed, I’m sure that I could make a lot of lute.
@Paraic: you never know unless you triangle…… too far
@BarronVonVaderHam: You sir are a bassoon!
To add, this is a sinister play to filter away liked comments. Findings have shown users tend to go straight to the comments section to view other opinions. So it’s a way of making it impossible to gain census on a topic (I.e. control of public opinion)
@TheFreeSpeechParty: Sound man! You get a thumbs up from me!
@TheFreeSpeechParty: say it ain’t so! So these ‘findings’ have people ‘going straight to the comments secton’ to ‘view the other opinions’ (presumably not reading the article) but by removing say a comments section the “insert mysterious benifactor” are controlling public opinion. Ehhh? Good!, I suppose.
What will all the ‘instahuns’ who stand in front of doors do now?
@Ozmond: instahuns ha ha ha ha ha!! Brilliant phrase! We all know a few!!
controlling opinions now
@Robert Phelan: that’s just your opinion
@BarronVonVaderHam: Don’t like it? Then go set up your own photos application, nobody’s stopping you. Free choice really.
@Dave O’Shaughnessy: sorry, wasn’t meant for you Barron .. the other lad obv’s ;-)
Maybe Instagram could “like” start acting ethically and responsibly by stop allowing their platform to be used to sell illegal counterfeit products such as raybans etc. Obviously they are far more interested in profits than ethics to allow illegal fakes on their site. Disgraceful that they actual condone criminals on their site by allowing the ads.
I can still see the number of likes on other people’s posts.
@Ed: me too
Will lose an awful lot of traffic
@Cathal: they didn’t lose any traffic in Canada over it, and received mostly positive feedback. Hence the decision to roll it out in Ireland.
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: how did our little experiment go in Canada?.. Sir, We’re losing lots of users and have received only negative feedback….. Hmmmm I see, roll it out in Ireland…. But sir!!…. Roll. It. Out.
This is a good idea I agree
Ahhh poor snow flakes!
Wow people of Ireland how does it feel to be Lab rats for social experiments for Facebook!!!
So what will the girlos do now?? Eat their food instead of taking pictures??
Just like the “If a tree falls in a forest…” philosophical thought,”if an influencer Insta picture doesn’t get a like, does it even exist”..
Nobody cares.. bore off
This already exists, it’s called Vsco and it has been around for a while…
Ahhh poor snowflakes!
have your say