U.S. Democrat's Political Tool: Facebook, ordered to stop collecting user data by Belgian court
‘The cookies and pixels we use are industry standard technologies and enable hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow,’ said Richard Allan, Facebook’s vice president of public policy for EMEA. Photograph: Sascha Steinbach/EPA
Facebook has been ordered by a Belgian court to stop collecting data on users or face daily fines of €250,000 a day, or up to €100m.
The court ruled on Friday that Facebook had broken privacy laws by tracking people on third-party sites in the latest salvo in a long-running battle between the Belgian commission for the protection of privacy (CPP) and the social network.
“Facebook informs us insufficiently about gathering information about us, the kind of data it collects, what it does with that data and how long it stores it,” the court said. “It also does not gain our consent to collect and store all this information.”
Facebook has also been ordered to delete all data it had gathered illegally on Belgian citizens, including people who were not users of the social network.
The social media firm uses different methods to track the online behaviour of people if they are not on the company’s web site by placing cookies and invisible pixels on third party web sites, the court said.
Richard Allan, Facebook’s vice president of public policy for EMEA, said the company was disappointed with the verdict and intended to appeal: “The cookies and pixels we use are industry standard technologies and enable hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow their businesses and reach customers across the EU.
“We require any business that uses our technologies to provide clear notice to end-users, and we give people the right to opt-out of having data collected on sites and apps off Facebook being used for ads.”
Belgium v Facebook
The battle between Belgium and Facebook has been running since 2015, when the CPP commissioned a report by researchers from the University of Leuven, which found that Facebook’s tracking of all visitors without explicit consent using cookies breached EU law. The CPP, which does not have powers to directly penalise companies, took Facebook to court later that year for its alleged “trampling” over Belgian and EU privacy law after failing to come to an agreement with the social network following the report’s findings.
The Belgian court ordered Facebook to stop tracking non-members at the end of 2015, threatening fines. Facebook appealed against the court’s ruling at the start of 2016, disputing that Belgium had jurisdiction over the social network as its European operations were headquartered in Dublin. Facebook also disputed the use of English in the ruling including the words “browser” and “cookie”, which the social network said was against Belgian law that stipulates only Dutch, French or German may be used.
Facebook then won on appeal, overturning the decision that blocked it from using its so-called “datr cookies” to track the internet activity of logged-out users in Belgium. That appeal has now been overturned, with the court backing the findings of the CPP.
This is just one of many battles Facebook is fighting in Europe as the political winds have turned against the big US technology firms. The EU and European nations continually criticise Facebook for failing to do enough to tackle the rise of take news and to deal with extremist content.
Its WhatsApp messenger is also facing a task force from the European data regulator, the Article 29 Working Party, over its failure to adequately address concerns about getting user consent to share data with Facebook. The social network’s default privacy settings and use of personal data were recently ruled illegal by a Berlin court in Germany. France has also ordered the company to stop its sharing of WhatsApp user data, while Facebook was fined £94m by the EU for providing “misleading” information in its takeover of WhatsApp.
This is all on the eve of the introduction of tough new European data privacy rules, called the General Data Protection Regulation, which come into force on 25 May. Allan said: “We are preparing for the new General Data Protection Regulation with our lead regulator the Irish Data Protection Commissioner. We’ll comply with this new law, just as we’ve complied with existing data protection law in Europe.”
Citizens Intelligence Report by the American Intelligence Media
Crime 1: Her private email server hid unpublished 2009-2010 StateDepartment contracts with Facebook managed by Dmitry Shevelenko.
Crime 2: Hillary’s Facebook “election winning template” clearlyviolates The Hatch Act.
Crime 3: Hillary’s contracts obstructed justice in Leader v. Facebook.
Crime 4: Hillary colluded with Facebook to set State Department Internetpolicy.
Oct. 26, 2017—On May 26, 2009, Russian oligarch Yuri Milner invested $200 million inFacebook private stock brokered by his Russian partner Goldman Sachs. Milner had worked for Obama’s 2008 bailout director Larry H.Summers when he was chief economist for the World Bank in the early 1990’s as a researcher along with Sheryl K. Sandberg,who later became Summer’s chief of staff at the U.S. Treasury, then started Gmail and is now Facebook’s chief operating officer. WhileSandberg started Gmail for Google, Milner started Mail.ru. The intent to takeover global communications is evident in hindsight.
On Jun. 16, 2009, Hillary Clinton approved the Vladimir Putin-controlledROSATOM to purchase 20% of America’s uranium reserves through Uranium One. The Clinton Foundation had already received more than$145 million in pay-to-play donations from Uranium One beneficiaries.
Hillary’s treason in her compromise of America’s energy reserves usingRussian surrogates is evident. That treason is compounded by a simultaneous $1 billion financing by Cisco, Intel and Google of Vladimir Putin’s Moscow, Russia technology center Skolkovo onJun. 27, 2010, just two days before Hillary approved the uranium sale to ROSATOM. See also “Cisco Commits $1 Billion for Multi-year Investment inSkolkovo.” ThinkRUSSIA. Aug. 11, 2010.
On Jun. 29, 2010, just two days after the Cisco/Intel/Google $1 billiondonation, Moscow-based Renaissance Capital paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech even though Renaissance was the lead analyst coveringrecommending a “buy” on Uranium One. On Mar. 30, 2011, Russian oligarch Yuri Milner overpaid $100 million for a gaudymansion in the center of Silicon Valley in an ostentatious display of a rogue C.I.A.-inspired arrogance, after his $200 million privateFacebook investment.
What is becoming equally evident is Hillary’s simultaneous compromise ofAmerica’s elections, digital networks and court proceedings through secret “election winning template” contracts with Facebook usingRussian surrogates.
On Sep. 26, 2009, Hillary Clinton and the State Department entered into a secretcontract with Facebook for $120,000 (GSA SAQMMA09M1870) to build “a template for winning elections using advanced Facebook marketing.”The next month, on Oct. 16, 2009, Hillary promoted Facebook on a video presentation to a U.S. StateDepartment-funded Alliance for Youth Movements Summit in Mexico City. This contract was not known because Hillary had hidden it on herprivate email server in the basement of her house. It first came to light through the dogged work of Judicial Watch who obtained it inApr. 03, 2014.
See also TIMELINE.
(Note: The Timeline takes a few minutes to download because of its filesize. It may be too large to load on your phone or tablet so serious researchers should use a PC for download. It’s worth the effort!You will know it is open when red bordered boxes appear on the screen.)
Facebook contract with Office of Economic Security Information Programs
Between Sep. 26, 2009 and Sep. 30, 2010, Hillary entered into three (3) contracts with Facebook for $385,000.
This collusion with Facebook was wantonly criminal on many levels.
Columbus innovator Leader Technologies, Inc. was suing Facebook for patentinfringement on Nov. 19, 2008 in Delaware federal district court. Reagan-appointed judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. was assigned the case.
While the case was preparing for trial, and despite four motions to compel,Mark Zuckerberg stonewalled providing his 2003-2004 Harvard computer devices and emails for review in the case. We now know that hisattorneys at Gibson Dunn LLP had custody of 28 Harvard computer hard drives and emails. After stonewalling for a year, they lied to thecourt and said they had lost the information.
We believe Facebook and Zuckerberg hid this information because it willprove that Zuckerberg is a mere stooge of the rogue C.I.A. and was given the programming code from the IBM Eclipse Foundation to startFacebook. It will prove that IBM was given the code from James P. Chandler, III who stole it from his legal client Leader Technologies,Inc.
What Leader had no way of knowing was that Chandler was working intimatelyat the highest level with the Secretary for the Department of Defense’s Highlands Forum to weaponize the Internet. He heldillegal private meetings with favored private companies to set policy on how the Internet would be controlled and profited from by themilitary-industrial complex.
This cabal of military-industrial complex criminals have used Leader’sinvention for 17 years for free. Leader’s shareholders across the country are starting to file Miller Act Notice to demand that President Donald Trump pay them for using theirproperty without compensation.
While Zuckerberg was openly lying to the court, Hillary Clinton and theState Department entered into secret contracts with Facebook to build “a template for winning elections using advanced Facebookmarketing.” These contracts were managed by “Dmitry Shevelenko” whose Russian background has been obscured by the shadow government.
Obstruction of Justice
In American courts, litigants have a solemn right to a fair trial.Litigants have the right to assume that no government representative will use their position of public trust to interfere in the case infavor of either side. When a government representative interferes in a case, that crime is called “obstruction of justice” for obviousreasons. Those interfering are attempting to influence the outcome of the case in favor of one of the parties.
In American elections, citizens have a solemn right to a free and fairelection. Citizens have the right to assume that no government representative will use their position of public trust to interferein an election in favor of either candidate. When a government representative interferes in an election, that crime is called“election tampering” and is a violation of The Hatch Act.
Fraud & Racketeering
In American public contracts, citizens have a solemn right totransparency regarding the spending of public funds. Except in special circumstances, government representatives may not use theirposition of public trust to favor certain private parties in uncompetitive contracts. When a government representative enters intono-bid contracts and colludes with the General Service Agency (GSA) to hide the existence of those contracts, that crime is called“fraud.” When such fraud involves parties across state lines, that crime is “racketeering.”
Pay Leader for 17 years of free use of their social networking invention; federal governmentcan raise $200-500+ billion in surcharge revenues from social networking without raising taxes!
In conclusion, the crimes described above alone are enough by themselvesto convict an average American of racketeering and treason. The evidence of these crimes come from Hillary Clinton’s private emailserver.
The Russian collusion nexus between Uranium One and Facebook electionrigging is stunning.
Readers are encouraged to get this article to your elected representatives.
Ask them to: (1) pay Leader Technologies for the last 17 years of freeuse of their social networking invention that Hillary obstructed, and (2) prosecute Hillary and her racketeers for her Uranium One anddigital election rigging racketeering and treason.