Please note:
You are in the euro|topics archive. For current articles from the European press review, please go to

Home / Index of Authors

Bergt, Svenja

RSS Subscribe to receive the texts of "Bergt, Svenja" as RSS feeds

3 articles of this author have been cited in the European Press Review so far.

Die Tageszeitung taz - Germany | 25/03/2015

Facebook lawsuit shows consumers' power

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) began hearing  a case brought against Facebook by Austrian law student Max Schrems on Tuesday. The court will examine whether the US company is obliged to observe EU data protection laws. For the left-leaning daily taz the case illustrates two things: "Firstly, consumers are by no means as powerless as is generally assumed. The current plaintiff before the ECJ, law student Max Schrems, started out in a small way, simply demanding that Facebook hand over the data it had on him - and he ended up getting 1,200 pages of data. … Secondly, if a single user can achieve so much, what are governments capable of? Legislators who don't duck away from supposedly all-powerful companies and the US government, but have the courage to take a clear stance for consumers and citizens and their rights? … [Yet] the German Federal Ministry of the Interior has blocked a German opinion on the Facebook case."

Die Tageszeitung taz - Germany | 14/05/2014

Carte blanche for more arbitrariness

The ruling delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) results in less rather than more clarity, the left-leaning daily taz concludes: "If the ECJ has codified the 'right to be forgotten' this means that in future not just Google but another entity will be fiddling about with search results, namely the person affected, at least indirectly. After all, ultimately it's still the courts that decide. And perhaps the real problem is not the right to be forgotten but the question: Who decides what can or must be forgotten about whom? Is it Google, because at some point a piece of data slides so far down in the search hits that it is effectively no longer registered by users? Or is it the courts? Does this mean one arbitrary rule has been replaced by another? The planned reform of EU data protection laws would be a good opportunity to clarify the situation. If it ever comes, that is."

Die Tageszeitung taz - Germany | 11/12/2013

Internet giants' false data protection campaign

US Internet giants like Apple and Google have launched a campaign against the intelligence services' spying programmes. In an open letter on Monday they called for limitations on state surveillance. The left-leaning daily taz sees the initiative as hypocritical: "After all, they themselves gather data endlessly. Telephone numbers for setting up email accounts, profiles about interests and preferences, information on friends, family connections and love affairs. It's unlikely that all that information will be erased at some point. ... And it's far from the case that these companies only passively collect the data entrusted to them more or less voluntarily by users, rather than actively invading users' privacy like the intelligence services do. ... So the fact that the major Internet companies are now calling for less surveillance doesn't necessarily mean they really want less surveillance. They're just afraid of losing users."

» Index of Authors

Other content