Slashdot Mirror


Deutsche Bahn to Sue Google

Many readers including this Anonymous Coward have written about this case: "After the DB-Deutsche Bahn (German railway comp.) won a case against Dutch ISP xs4all to remove 2 articles that were hosted on one of their servers, the DB now is going to sue Google (Wednesday) and probably in 2 days time Yahoo! and Altavista. Infoworld has an article about it. More background information about previous attempts to censor the same site can be found here and here's list of mirrors." And Yes, "Access is Forbidden."

515 comments

  1. Just out of curiosity... by L-Wave · · Score: 0, Interesting

    what is the motive for suing a search engine to remove your pages? isn't it practically free advertising? Also, could they win a suit against goole? I'm fairly certain that google mentions on the site, that to have your pages removed from thier DB, you jsut have to send them an email with your URL and asking to bt removed....isnt sueing jumping the gun a little bit?

    --
    I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
    1. Re:Just out of curiosity... by benjymous · · Score: 1

      They're suing to get Google to remove the cache of someone else's pages.

      --
      Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
    2. Re:Just out of curiosity... by sopuli · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that google mentions on the site, that to have your pages removed from thier DB, you jsut have to send them an email with your URL and asking to bt removed....

      These pages are not from Deutsche Bahn themselves but from a private person, who, I'm pretty sure is not prepared to send such a request to Google.

    3. Re:Just out of curiosity... by TeaDaemon · · Score: 1

      Just a little point, but I think that only applies if you want Google to remove your own pages. I don't think you can just ask them to take down links to pages you don't like.

      In this case, Deutsche Bahn is trying to censor a website hosted on a Dutch server, who's content is perfectly legal under Dutch law (IANAL, and I've not studied the pages in question, but as far as I'm aware).

    4. Re:Just out of curiosity... by -brazil- · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, the content is not legal. That's why DB successfully sued the ISP in the Netherlands. Now they want Google links and caches to be removed as well.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    5. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Prop · · Score: 5, Insightful
      what is the motive for suing a search engine to remove your pages? isn't it practically free advertising? Also, could they win a suit against goole? I'm fairly certain that google mentions on the site, that to have your pages removed from thier DB, you jsut have to send them an email with your URL and asking to bt removed....isnt sueing jumping the gun a little bit?

      First of all, you should read the article, it answers most of your questions.

      They already asked google to take it down the hyperlinks and cached copies, but they didn't, so now they're suing

      It's a tough situation : a handbook on how to destroy rail tracks is hardly worth fighting for - but even in those instances, freedom of speech must be absolute

      but it sucks having to do it over some dangerous wingnuts' propaganda...

    6. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of masturbating all over yourself for getting the first post maybe you should try reading the article before posting you god damn imbecile.

    7. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Giving google 2 days to respond? It probably takes Deutsche Post more than 2 days to deliver the letter!

    8. Re:Just out of curiosity... by zeno_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmm, just from one of the links that were in the story:

      document is not illegal in Holland, and is the property of one of XS4ALL's customers. So far German authorities have not contacted XS4ALL, no official requests where made to remove these documents from our server.

      I don't know about you, but it sounds like the documents in question are not illegal in the Netherlands (not much seems to be illegal in the netherlands).

      Here is also a clip from the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10:

      "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

      Now where is the 'not legal' part of all this? The only place i can see that happen is the party that is in Germany.. I haven't heard of this issue until today so I may not know all there is to know about it, but I did read parts of the article that don't seem to corrolate with what your saying...

    9. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1
      They already asked google to take it down the hyperlinks and cached copies, but they didn't, so now they're suing



      They didn't because Google allows you to have your pages removed, not somebody else's pages, like Deutsche Bahn asked.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    10. Re:Just out of curiosity... by paule9984673 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Freedom of speech is in no way absolute in Germany.

      This doesn't necessarily mean that Germany is a less free country, though: The German constitution ("Grundgesetz") balances a lot of individual rights against each other.

      Particularily for the freedom of speech this means that something can be covered by the freedom of speech, but must stand back behind more important values. Regulations of speech must be general enough (to not single out specific people or groups) and must be deemed necessary to defend such another important right.

      Having said all that, everybody and their dog knows that the magazine in question is prosecuted for their political work ("leftist"), not for some obscure technical documentation. Deutsche Bahn as a former public service and now state-owned company is deeply rooted in the political system.

    11. Re:Just out of curiosity... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      How does that mean it's less free? I can't have this information (not completely a deal-breaker; there's information I'm not allowed to have in the US.) But the information isn't copyrighted. Also, I can't go and convert people to Scientology (as I recall), and, unlike in the US, I don't have to defend my speech against regulations, the regulators have to defend their regulations against the inherent freedom of my speech.

      I'm a big fan of the First Amendment, and when I read of other 'progressive' governments (read: Great Britain, Germany, Canada. Not Pakistan, Peru, etc.) doing away with the rights that I take for granted (and enjoy reading about and taking part in the free exercise thereof) I am quite startled. It makes me grateful that I live where I live, despite its many problems. (And I'm not a rabid USA-USA-USA sort, either.)

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    12. Re:Just out of curiosity... by dachshund · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but it sucks having to do it over some dangerous wingnuts' propaganda...

      We don't need Freedom of Speech protections to protect Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website. We don't need them to protect Ed Jones's "The Taliban suck" page. The wingnuts are the people testing the bounds of free speech, and they're the ones who let us know how much of it we can count on.

      Some argue that people like this are actually a threat to speech, by inciting the government to crack down so regularly. Personally, I take the opinion that your average government would simply attempt to regulate even less controversial speech-- things like "steal music" or "this politician sucks"-- if they didn't have the wingnuts to keep them constantly tied up in court.

      PS I realize we're talking about a private company, in a country without all of the free speech protections of the US. Nonetheless, speech protections are important to us all, and should be fought for no matter where they're threatened. Particularly on the net, where one country's silly laws can potentially be applied to everyone on the planet.

    13. Re:Just out of curiosity... by -brazil- · · Score: 1

      The "not legal" part is in other codes of law that describes restrictions of rights which have been found to be desirable.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    14. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Pepebuho · · Score: 1

      Most important is the fact that they explicitly say that they decided to sue in Germany because they ALREADY know that they do not stand a chance in a U.S. Court. Therefore they will go to whichever court (in this case, German) that will give them the ruling they want. Talk about boutique justice.

    15. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Surak · · Score: 2

      PS I realize we're talking about a private company, in a country without all of the free speech protections of the US.

      Sounds pretty clear from this slashdotter's comments that Germany does have much the same free speech protections as the US, at least in terms of their Constitution.

    16. Re:Just out of curiosity... by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      Of course they're sueing where their chances are best (At least they're a German company and it's about a page in German so Germany was more or less an obvious choice; it'd get a little surreal if they'd done it in China or something like that)

      But it's sad to see how legislation of your own country becomes worthless as someone who wants to sue you will always find an excuse to do it in some country which suits him better.
      You can't any longer rely on the fact that you have not broken local laws and, if you are unlucky, your next trip abroad could get really nasty (Sklyarov anyone?)

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    17. Re:Just out of curiosity... by ZoneGray · · Score: 2

      Freedom of speech is not absolute in America, and never has been. Nor should it be.

      Darned close, yes, but there have always been some things you couldn't do. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example. Distributing child pornography is still quite illegal. Telling somebody to go kill other people or destroy property is likewise outlawed. And of course, there have always been restrictions against libel and slander.

      That's the way it's always been. Freedom of speech was never absolute, nor was it intended to cover such acts. Deconstructionist interpretations of the First Ammendment can't change that.

      Whether the limitations apply to this case might be open to debate. Personally, I'm content to let the parties settle it themselves.

    18. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez man, sounds like you could use a little masturbating yourself.

    19. Re:Just out of curiosity... by JesseL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please, don't forget that those examples are not limitations of speech. They are limitations of acts that may be commited through the mechanism of speech. It would be perfectly legal to yell "Fire" in an ampitheatre being used for a lecture at a firefighters convention. I see naked children on TV regularly, but they're not being sexually exploited - they're in diaper commercials. Libel and slander are just that - libel and slander, not any particular speech.

      We make laws against inciting riots, exploitation of children, and spreading malicious untruths about people. We do not directly limit speech. This is an important disinction that too few people recognize.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    20. Re:Just out of curiosity... by ranger8x · · Score: 0

      I think they've totally had the opposite effect they wanted to... instead of keeping this a low profile site, now everyone knows about it, and can visit it through mirrors, etc. those articles will not go away, and now they are in the limelight.

    21. Re:Just out of curiosity... by ckuhtz · · Score: 1

      perhaps you should read the infoworld article. what a lame troll.

      --

      Poof.
    22. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Otto+Normal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A couple of remarks:

      - the church of scientology bitched mightily against the German government because it removed it's religious non-profit tax status to replace it with a for-profit organization status. They love money remember. The church of scientology is being observed by the "Verfassungsschutz" (lit. = federal agency for the protection of the constitution) because it's been established by court that it has near-totalitarian goals (i.e. domination) that threatens the constitution. Other than that it operates just as freely as in the US (they bugged me, I've had their material in my mailbox, etc.).

      - this is a Perl world: there's more than one way to do it (I mean democracy here). The US constitution works fine for Americans, the German constitution works fine for Germans, etc. A constitution reflects the preferences and experiences of the people who live with it (and ultimately write it). There isn't any such thing as a supremely democratic and freedom-maximizing constitution, as the many rights we enjoy collide frequently. Therefore, your sentence "it makes me grateful that I live where I live, despite its many problems" applies to many countries, and to my understanding it means that you like the constitution you live with. That's great.

    23. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops, off topic sig comment...

      for a moment I thought it would be "...whoever comes out is the winner" which is ho-hum... your punch line is perfect however... I'm going to use that! (unless you've copywrited it!)

    24. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Alsee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      a handbook on how to destroy rail tracks is hardly worth fighting for - but even in those instances, freedom of speech must be absolute

      but it sucks having to do it over some dangerous wingnuts' propaganda...


      As I understand it the the censored article was a descrition of a rather sophisticated form of sabotage. They trigger the railway system's built in fail-safe mechanisms and the trains slow to a few MPH. Minimal damage that actually results in safer than normal operation.

      You can disagree with their position. You can arrest them when they sabotage equipment. But you have to respect their commitment to safety.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      when I read of other 'progressive' governments (read: Great Britain, Germany, Canada. Not Pakistan, Peru, etc.) doing away with the rights that I take for granted (and enjoy reading about and taking part in the free exercise thereof) I am quite startled

      So, what rights do you have in the US that I don't have in the UK? At least I can discuss ROT-13 in a public place without getting sent to jail.

    26. Re:Just out of curiosity... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1
      freedom of speech must be absolute

      Nothing must (or should) be absolute. Not even in the US where freedom of speech is used to protect kiddie porn, is it absolute. Amazingly some people are able to function in a system which does not privilege merely one freedom at the expense of others.

      Note: I am not saying that freedom of speech is not invaluable and must be protected, just there's other freedoms that need protecting too.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. Google Cache of Broken Link by DtMM · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's Google's cache of the broken link.

    1. Re:Google Cache of Broken Link by Romancer · · Score: 2

      From the article:
      "Even if the pages no longer exist on XS4ALL sites, we want the search engines to remove the link because it still advertises a handbook for destruction. People will start looking for it elsewhere and we don't want that,"


      What part of the united states law do these people not understand? The part about our people's right to distribute knowledge, any knowledge, even bad knowledge perhaps? Oh wait, that's not our right anymore. The DMCA and the Corporations that bought it into being took care of that.

      Nevermind.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  3. Google's defense... by kzinti · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google's defense: I know NOTH-ing. I see NOTH-ing. I hear NOTH-ing...

    Germans will believe that, right?

    1. Re:Google's defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... it worked for a large portion of the population a few decades ago...

  4. Not again by cholokoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are there people related to scientologists? :P

    OTOH, these are very legal concerns that the linked pages contain information that, in the hands of the wrong party could be dangerous to their operations, and being a public utility, they have to be concerned.

    This is iteresting because it has dire implications on page linking in general.

    --
    Return the bells of Balangiga.
    1. Re:Not again by SyntheticTruth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A spoon in the hands of the wrong person can be deadly too. We should ban spoons and any information about spoons.

      A brick, and any information about making or using bricks, can be dangerous in the wrong hands too; we should ban everything about those as well.

      Blocking a page about some idea to sabotage is not going to make such extremists go away or stop their actions.

      It's just about control and power; and it's silly.

    2. Re:Not again by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      Are there people related to scientologists? :P

      I thought Germany banned Scientology...

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    3. Re:Not again by MouseR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A brick, and any information about making or using bricks, can be dangerous in the wrong hands too; we should ban everything about those as well.

      Blocking a page about some idea to sabotage is not going to make such extremists go away or stop their actions.


      Bricks are meant to build houses. Yet, you can use bricks to maim people.

      On the other hand, guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose than destroying railroad tracks in attempts to disrupt the service, with the unfortunate possibility of killing people.

      Your analogy is too simplistic to be considered any valid. Free speech needs not be associated with destruction and killings. For this would definitely put and end to free speech.

    4. Re:Not again by afidel · · Score: 1

      I thought Germany banned Scientology...

      They just didn't want any competition!

      Germany is also where they burned books, banning ideas does not work as information wants to be free.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Not again by WowTIP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose than destroying railroad tracks in attempts to disrupt the service, with the unfortunate possibility of killing people.

      But then again, information in itself has never harmed anyone. What harms is the practical use of that information and that is what is and should be illegal. Not publishing the information.

      If we banned all information on how to blow things up and how to murder evil dictators, how many books, movies and documentaries would not need to be banned? I for one think that is too high a price to pay for banning people like these from publishing their ideas on the internet. As far as I know, none of the ideas in their manifesto has been used yet. So, arrest the bad guys if they are really stupid enough to use the material.

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
    6. Re:Not again by WowTIP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Information has no will, people on the other hand often want information to be free.

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
    7. Re:Not again by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      Germany is also where they burned books, banning ideas does not work as information wants to be free.

      It's been quite a while hasn't it? OTOH, In America, NOW, if one religion were banned, all religions would be subsequently banned. Germany at least seems to know the difference between "the common good" and blindly following law. In America you can kill people because it's religiously protected (Scientology) free speech. Too bad the dead have no say (Unless you've seen 'Dark Star').

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    8. Re:Not again by repsychler · · Score: 1

      Free speech needs not be associated with destruction and killings. For this would definitely put and end to free speech.

      So we need to censor this in order to have freedom of speech? It's either free or not, there is no "freedom of speech (except for that which is associated with whatever we decide we don't like)"

      --
      Duffman can never die! Only the actors who play him!
    9. Re:Not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should ban spoons

      ObMatrix "There is no spoon"

    10. Re:Not again by SyntheticTruth · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose than destroying railroad tracks in attempts to disrupt the service, with the unfortunate possibility of killing people.

      I agree; but the fact remains that extremist elements don't need that information anyways; they will create new ways or get the knowledge in less obvious ways. Banning the information solves nothing; if it's good for anything, that information can be used to find ways to keep the railways safer...

      And as was mentioned in another post, by driving up the demand to censure the information, you draw more people to it -- it serves no purpose in the end, either way.

    11. Re:Not again by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      So, if someone or some group with a vestd interest in causing you problems posted information for your specific house and how to make it fall to the ground, you wouldn't care all in the name of free speech? Bah.

      On the one hand, you are corret, its the utilization of this info that makes it a Bad Thing(tm) but, the only possible use of this info is to make bad things happen. To me, that says that not one person in the world has any right or need to know this. if it's illegal to act on (and of course you'd never break the law), why bother knowing to begin with?

      what's more, this is a private company trying to keep it's interests secure. As someone else menitoned, security through obscurity DOES WORK in the real world, and a company has every right to keep its routes and schedules private. Banks dont post a sechedule for the armored truck arrivals, last time i checked, and i dont think anyone would be up in arms if they sued someone for persisting in posting such a thing

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    12. Re:Not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yet, you can use bricks to maim people.

      You can also use people to maim other people!

      BAN PEOPLE!
    13. Re:Not again by midas2000 · · Score: 1

      bricks might be meant to build houses, but if you hit someone over the head with it, it still flippin' hurts. i dont think the person that has a brick in his skull is gonna care what the Aristotelean Purpose of the brick was.

      my point is: i think his analogy holds, from a practial point of view. they are both potentially dangerous, and it matters little what they were meant to do when they were made.

      and there certainly is some precedent for people going a little crazy and outlawing anything that can be even viewed as marginally dangerous. i think that's what he's referring to.

      after all, think of the children.

      cheers,
      -midas (www.haduken.com)

      --
      maybe we're born with it, maybe it's haduken.
    14. Re:Not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > On the other hand, guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose than destroying railroad tracks (...)

      Yeah? I'd like to see someone destroying railroad tracks using only a guidebook. Even if it were hard-cover...

    15. Re:Not again by zer0*ryok0 · · Score: 1

      just wait till one day, someone comes up to you..

      "ill give you 1 MILLION dollars to destroy my old railroad track"

      --
      the only fact is that everything is an opinion
    16. Re:Not again by jgerman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ok up till this guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose ... . This is wrong. Knowledge in and of itself is worthy of merit. What about the engineer that decides he wants to improve the weaknesses of the railroad system. Then this book does exactly the opposite and helps the systems from being destroyed.


      Then you go on to blatantly pervert the concept of free speech. Free Speech does need to be associated with destruction and killing. Free Speech is absolute, it's the implementations that require (out of practicality) some restrictions.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    17. Re:Not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >On the other hand, guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose than destroying railroad tracks in attempts to disrupt the service, with the unfortunate possibility of killing people.

      And if Afghanistan were full of rail tracks, what would we be saying right now?

    18. Re:Not again by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2, Funny
      OTOH, these are very legal concerns that the linked pages contain information that, in the hands of the wrong party could be dangerous to their operations, and being a public utility, they have to be concerned.

      And, of course, removing web pages and censoring search results will save us all.

      Here's an actual transript obtained from the idyllic future that awaits us:

      [a German terrorist meeting]

      Heinrich: "I have an idea! Let's sabotage a railway!"

      Günther: "Brilliant! I'll do a Google search to show us how!"

      [typing sounds]

      Günther: "Curses! Google has no information on sabotaging German railways!"

      Heinrich: "Oh, well. Nevermind. Let's go drink some beer."

      [transcript ends]

      Amazing. I know I'm convinced!
    19. Re:Not again by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

      "Bricks are meant to build houses. Yet, you can use bricks to maim people."

      -- Ah, yes but, the purpose of the item in question (brick, spoon, book, information, etc...) should not matter.
      Example: A rock can be use to injure people, but a rock has no purpose, it is not created from the hands of a person.
      Then again, information that describes (from what i gather, since i did not read it) how to destroy a railroad track is man-made information WTIH a bad purpose, IMHO.

      The problem is not the information (item). The problem is with the people that read the information. There are people that are evil/stupid/ignorant enough to use it.

      I am FOR free speech, but as long as they are people like that, I'm not sure our society (worldly) is ready for that kind of information...

      --
      Here we go again!
    20. Re:Not again by Greyfox · · Score: 2
      A guidebook for destroying railroad tracks might provide a good deal of insight into how to build railroad tracks. Hiding your head in the sand because a potential danger would be "too hard" to fix is a sure way to insure that someone will eventually see those weaknesses and attempt to exploit them. We already have ample proof of that.

      So instead of persecuting and prosecuting those who would attempt to warn us of the dangers we could face, perhaps we should listen to them and think about what they're really saying instead.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    21. Re:Not again by Alsee · · Score: 2

      with the unfortunate possibility of killing people.

      Safer than normal operation.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    22. Re:Not again by sfm · · Score: 1

      Free speech is just that, speech that is free from censorship and control. Where do you draw the line. If you outlaw speech associated with destruction and killings, does this mean one is no longer able to talk about the Holocaust? Drawing lines here is very difficult and is guaranteed to place you on that "slippery slope" to killing the First ammendment.

      Maybe only a technicality, but I believe the article states the instructions are for removing power from the tracks, not destroying them.

    23. Re:Not again by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      n America you can kill people because it's religiously protected (Scientology) free speech.

      You need to talk to your crack dealer. Whatever he's cutting your supply with is making you hallucinate something fierce.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    24. Re:Not again by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      In America you can kill people because it's religiously protected (Scientology) free speech.

      You need to talk to your crack dealer. Whatever he's cutting your supply with is making you hallucinate something fierce.

      Reality check. This shit DOES happen.
      http://www.lisamcpherson.org/

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    25. Re:Not again by pipacs · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose than destroying railroad tracks in attempts to disrupt the service, with the unfortunate possibility of killing people.
      Destroying railroad tracks can serve a very useful purpose, during war time for example. It is still just a tool, like the brick or the screwdriver or the A-bomb. It's the usage what matters.
  5. subsidiaries by mbbac · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, when is Google pulling its offices out of Germany in order to avoid this lawsuit? A company such as Google should not operate in a country where free speech is not lawful.

    --

    mbbac

    1. Re:subsidiaries by bmongar · · Score: 1

      In what country would they be left, sealand? Almost every country restricts speech in one way or another.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    2. Re:subsidiaries by Cally · · Score: 5, Interesting
      A company such as Google should not operate in a country where free speech is not lawful.


      What do you mean by "a company such as Google"? If you mean "a company which is popular with geeks and Slashdotters" - well, you're right, in that some of the shine may gradually rub off their geek-friendly, free-speech protecting image. OTOH, plenty of large well-known corporations do business with China, say, or in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,.. ( insert your favourite repressive non-democratic regime...) IBM organised the Holocaust, you know, and Cisco built and support the Great Firewall of China (and who knows who supplies the software tools that pull out Falun Gong-related email from the wire and queue a request for the secret police to pay the poster a visit at 4am?) (actually, it's probably Free software: but that's morally defensible, in that the Free software community are not getting rich supporting repression.)

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    3. Re:subsidiaries by demon-cw · · Score: 4, Insightful
      First off all the "Deusche Bahn" is AFAIK a private company despite it's name. So it's not germany "outlawing" free speech it's a private company suing another company

      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?
      There goes your "free speech"...
      q.e.d.

      Thank you and now mod me down to oblivion for beeing a german nazi or whatever!

    4. Re:subsidiaries by nagora · · Score: 1
      A company such as Google should not operate in a country where free speech is not lawful.

      That wouldn't really leave anywhere, would it? Every country has things which are "secret" and talking about, for example, the security arrangements at the Pentagon will get you in gaol pretty quick.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    5. Re:subsidiaries by Tom · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why not read the Grundgesetz, the constitution of Germany? You may be interested in article 5, which guarantees freedom of speech, details what it extends to (e.g. explicitly includes writing and pictures, but also the right to acquire information) and where the limits are (violation of other laws and defamation).

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:subsidiaries by arivanov · · Score: 2

      It will not help. Almost all European countries have laws that prohibit distribution of information that can specifically be used for sabotage and creation of explosive devices. UK has the same laws for example. If you explain someone how to make TNT you can get jailed for a considerable amount of time.

      So in theory you cannot publish instructions on how to make TNT, nitroglycerine or Mercury Fluminate in the UK. In practice you can find them in the CRC handbook. Same goes for the majority of other "terrorist practices".

      These laws are written in a blanket fashion, but usually, they are used only against someone who is specifically enciting to use the knowledge for terror/vandalism purposes. Which is the case here.

      This does not make these laws any less stupid. For example, if the law is followed, the entire history of the resistance in Europe during World War II should be prohibited. Quite a few German trains went off the track during those years. Using similar methods. Right? So Europe did not resist german occupation. Right? No trains went down. Right?

      Wrong...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:subsidiaries by mbbac · · Score: 1

      Actually, I meant a company such as Google in that Google's purpose revolves around free speech. Google needs to be able to freely link to anything on the Internet. Therefore, Google should vacate offices in any country that doesn't support this right.

      The United States had thus far supported Google's rights in this arena. If DMCA isn't struck down, or gets worse, then Google should look for another home country -- and so should I.

      --

      mbbac

    8. Re:subsidiaries by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >

      Hu?

      In wich world do you live?

      German Constitution Article 5: Everybody has the right to distribute and express his OPINION freely as well as to inform himself freely. [...]

      Note: free speach is expressing your OPINION. And it is getting free access to the OPINIONS of other people.

      Free speach is NOT a detailed instruction in "HOW TO KILL PEOPLE", "HOW TO DESTROY OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY" and "HOW TO RECRUIT TERRORISTS".

      If a certain piece of paper with letters on it is free speach or an illegal encaurae of terrorism is a descission of a court.

      I doub that you can call a descission of a court censorship.

      Better you read the article, and make yourself an opinion, instead of jumping on the train of dumb comments ....

      I fully support banning such stuff from the internet, exactly as I support banning child porn from the internet. But thats only my opinion.

      Regards,
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:subsidiaries by mbbac · · Score: 2, Interesting
      First off all the "Deusche Bahn" is AFAIK a private company despite it's name. So it's not germany "outlawing" free speech it's a private company suing another company.

      I did not confuse Deutsche Bahn with the German government. I was worried that German law enables Deutsche Bahn to file this lawsuit and expect to win it.
      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?
      You're probably right, and that is a sad fact. Unfortunately, there is presently an overwhelming psuedo-patriotism in the United States today. These monkey spanks act without thought and support Ashcroft et al in their pursuit of limiting our freedom -- which is the most unpatriotic thing one could do.
      --

      mbbac

    10. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      read the article and the post you're replying to again, dimwit.

      we know it's a private company- what's disturbing is that they're filing suit in germany rather than the US because they stand a better chance of winning in germany since the germans don't support free speach as staunchly as the USians.

      if some group posted instructions on how to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers i'd support their right to free speech. and i'd hope the airlines would read the instructions and change their operations to make such instructions useless.

      "you started it."
      "we didn't start it."
      "yes you did, you invaded poland!"

    11. Re:subsidiaries by mbbac · · Score: 1

      I don't know. There are publications about Area 51. ;) And there were publications and even plastic models of the SR-71 before it was declassified.

      --

      mbbac

    12. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be modded down just for stupidity.

      Skysrapers on the internet would be virtual wouldn't they?
      You're suggesting that the FBI shut down a game?

    13. Re:subsidiaries by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?

      Not really. I can publish instructions on how to commit murder (as loompanics does) and I can publish accurate plans for constructing a nuclear device, both legally. How is this worse?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    14. Re:subsidiaries by arkanes · · Score: 2

      It's morally bankrupt to make broad laws with the promise that you'll only use them "on the bad people" anyway. You should ALWAYS judge a law by the extreme case to which it could apply, not the medium case which it's being touted as a solution for.

    15. Re:subsidiaries by Zerth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's see if that works.

      8 Steps to Terrorism

      1. Learn to wiggle a yoke without crash.
      2. Let pilot take off.
      3. Hijack plane.
      4. Follow a hiway to a city.
      5. Point at tallest building.
      6. Try to keep the plane level.
      7.

      Hang on, there's someone at the door, I'll post the other 2 in a minute

    16. Re:subsidiaries by daoine · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out? There goes your "free speech"...

      Free speech is not a blanket clause to let you say whatever you want.

      The first amendment is still bound within the confines of the law. For example, it's illegal to threaten the lives of certain government officials. No first amendment argument is gonna help there.

      The FBI might go after said site. They might go after sites with similar content, in hopes of getting to a network behind it. But I highly doubt they would go after Google for merely indexing it. That's like suing the phone company for listing a criminal in the phone book.

    17. Re:subsidiaries by hrieke · · Score: 2

      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?


      In a word, no.
      I would expect the FBI to talk to the owner of the site, find out what is going on in the person's mind, and determin if this person is a hazard to anyone else. But the person / group has the right to say what ever they want. That's why we have these hate groups running around in the open for the most part. they can be bigots and be open about their bigotry.


      As far as 'free speech' goes, the Supreme Court just allowed virtual kiddie porn (and granted the law was over reaching, effecting medical texts and other beneficial forms of expressions as well, which is why it was struck down, but I digress) to exist, and we really try not to say what can be and want can not be said, but more importantly what the social constraints of what is being said, and why (just covering my ass with the shouting of 'Fire' in a theater). This is why the 'Anarchist's Cook Book' is legal and for sale here, along with books on how to make drugs, modify guns, etc, etc, etc.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    18. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is my opinion that if you
      a)....
      b)....
      c)....

      then the train will probably be derailed.

    19. Re:subsidiaries by ethereal · · Score: 2, Informative
      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out? There goes your "free speech"... q.e.d.

      The really funny thing is that this is all documented very well in any number of books at your local public library, like The Running Man (for the crashing) and various other true and fictional books to describe how to do the hijacking itself. The average American has seen plenty of movies that involve airplane hijackings; figuring out how to do it yourself (note: this is not something I'm advocating here) would not be that difficult. Especially if you don't even use guns to do it.

      In the U.S. you can still buy The Anarchist's Cookbook even! But you may have to go to court to defend that right, just like xs4all is in this case. So there is no absolute freedom of speech without at least the money to back it up.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    20. Re:subsidiaries by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?"

      Hell, if they can get in trouble for shutting down the so-called Nuremberg List, I can see the FBI at least hesitating before going after such a site.

    21. Re:subsidiaries by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1
      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?
      There goes your "free speech"...


      I doubt it. They might frown in their direction, or even send someone to investigate and see if they represent a threat (as they should, it's their job), but I very much doubt that the FBI would attempt to have the pages removed "as soon as the word gets out." And they certainly haven't asked Google to do anything like this. That's the whole reason the suit wasn't filed in the US.

      Since Sept 11th we've seen detailed documentaries and structural analyses of the collapse. That's certainly information that could help someone planning a repeat performance. Did the FBI censor it? Of course not.

      There's tons of stuff out there that could be used for evil purposes, and some of it is even intended for evil purposes. Yet, by golly, it's still out there.
    22. Re:subsidiaries by OO7david · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, yes, the freedom of speech is the freedom to say such things. If the courts were to blacklist everytype of "terrorist" writings, where would it stop? How is this different from blacklisting Communism in the 50's and Herr McCarthy's banning of forms of thought? To say that freedom of speech only takes the curret fad of what is "good" does not mean it is freedom. It is subjectivism under which everyone is forced by law. The freedom of speech is all encroaching; it takes the "good" with the "bad" despite what people want to have censored.

    23. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, if you can't read you could always watch Hollywood movies for inspiration.

    24. Re:subsidiaries by DustMagnet · · Score: 1
      Your own post contradicts you.

      German Constitution Article 5: Everybody has the right to distribute and express his OPINION freely as well as to inform himself freely.

      People do need to be know how terroism works, otherwise we just have trust some secret cabel to tell us what to do. That's what free speech is all about.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    25. Re:subsidiaries by frankske · · Score: 1
      A company such as Google should not operate in a country where free speech is not lawful.

      then why is its HQ in the States?

    26. Re:subsidiaries by mbbac · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't know that free speech doesn't extend to publishing facts. Damn them for publishing facts!

      My opinion that you're a moron is protected, but my publishing of a 'how to' document is not?

      --

      mbbac

    27. Re:subsidiaries by Strog · · Score: 1
      I'm glad these people finally figured out a definitive way "TO KILL PEOPLE", "TO DESTROY OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY" and "TO RECRUIT TERRORISTS". It would appear according to your arguement that it has been their opinion on how to do it up to this point. That must be why they are finally cracking down on it. They finally got it from opinion to fact.

      Great logic there.

    28. Re:subsidiaries by platypus · · Score: 2

      For example, if the law is followed, the entire history of the resistance in Europe during World War II should be prohibited.

      Not to mention all episodes of McGyver

    29. Re:subsidiaries by nolife · · Score: 2

      +5 Insightful?

      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet

      Security via obscurity does not work. Your example is very flawed. This exact thing happened and I bet the the idea did not come from a search of Google on the internet. Had the idea of this nature been made more public then it would have opened peoples eyes to this fact and maybe something would have been done before hand to prevent it. If the German railway has a bad design and is open to attack, it will be attacked by a motivated individual. Hiding the flaw from the "general" public does not stop this. If you were a frequent user of the German railroad don't you think you should have the right to know about this?

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    30. Re:subsidiaries by dgroskind · · Score: 2

      which is the most unpatriotic thing one could do.

      Questioning the patriotism of people you disagree with pretty much ends discussion on any topic. Someone could argue with equal logic that the people who oppose Ashcroft the most are the terrorists. Therefore, people like yourself who oppose Ashcroft support the terrorists.

      Insofar as the threat of terrorism is real, it poses a real limitation on our freedom. The question is: do the measures proposed by Ashcroft reduce the threat of terrorism enough to compensate for the loss of freedom that fighting terrorism entails? When the question is framed this way, the debate is over what approach leads to the minimum loss of freedom.

      One can take either side in this debate without being a traitor.

    31. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM a-t-il aidé les nazis?

    32. Re:subsidiaries by bluGill · · Score: 2

      No, I can talk about security arrangements at the pentagon as much as I want, assuming I can find them out. That is the hard part, and I can only think of two (general) ways to find out, and both are illegal. First is the break in, and watch what happens. (you will get arrested, but if you get your information back to your orginization perhaps eventially they get someone in, and then can publish how). The other is to interview those who work in the pentagon, who are prohibited from talking about it, it would be legal for me to talk about it, but those who told me would get in trouble.

      And without knowing a thing about their arrangements I can assure everyone that they change things constantly to keep security as strong as possibal, and should they suspect someone knows enough about arrangements to bypass them, they will change that immeadiatly.

    33. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7. Give away source code to product.
      8. Sell support services.
      9. ???
      10. Profit!

    34. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that kind of opinion is why we whipped your arse in the war. :)

      The only difference between America and the rest of the world is our Constitution. So long as we have the Constitution and the freedoms it gives us, we will always be bigger, stronger and richer than every country on this planet.

      Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    35. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see the FBI do this, I really want to, because it would get thrown out!

    36. Re:subsidiaries by jweatherley · · Score: 1

      So in theory you cannot publish instructions on how to make TNT, nitroglycerine or Mercury Fluminate in the UK.

      Bullshit, the UK government itself has even published detailed plans for building your own nuclear bomb. There is no problem with publishing recipes for explosives - making them is a different matter!

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    37. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I understand were you are comming from, but do you really trust the government to be the one to figure out where that line is. Speech will likily only be challenged if those opposed have a lot of money or in great number (primarity the first).

      -Jeff

    38. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just came to the conclusion, that this case could also fit to the discussion if there should be software patents or exploits. As far as I see , a "Howto stop trains etc..." is an algorithm to solve a certain "problem". If you do software development, you do nothing else. You code f.e. code that can crash an internet server. It's a kind of terrorism. So are you allowed to release the exploit?

      cya

    39. Re:subsidiaries by aCC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's like suing the phone company for listing a criminal in the phone book.

      True. This wouldn't happen in the USA. It's like suing Napster for providing the infrastructure to share songs... oh wait... damn.

    40. Re:subsidiaries by Furrybuddha · · Score: 0

      Please keep your histories accurate. America did have a hand in defeating the Nazis in world war II but they only joined the fight at the VERY end of the war. America was busy sitting around doing nothing to stop the Nazis until pearl harbour. However you are partially right. America's refusal to join world war I and II until long into it after having sat around selling arms and such and enjoying an economic boom from the fact that everyone else was at war is what very well makes you "bigger, stronger and richer" It's just a shame that in a way America is "bigger, stronger and richer" from the blood of the people that died in the camps and on the battle field while they didn't get involved because it "wasn't their problem". Even Soviet Russia had the sense to get involved long before America. So carefully place those words in YOUR pipe and smoke them.

    41. Re:subsidiaries by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Why not read the Grundgesetz, the constitution of Germany?

      Because I don't read German. But there is a translation here.

      The section about free speech says:
      (1) Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinion in speech, writing, and pictures and to freely inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films are guaranteed. There will be no censorship.
      (2) These rights are subject to limitations in the provisions of general statutes, in statutory provisions for the protection of the youth, and in the right to personal honor.
      (3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching does not release from allegiance to the constitution.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    42. Re:subsidiaries by mrbrown8 · · Score: 1

      > as well as to inform himself freely. [...]

      [snip]

      > I fully support banning such stuff from the internet....

      Well, IMO, I *don't*.

      I want to learn HOW TO KILL PEOPLE and HOW TO DESTROY OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY because that information can be used against me. I refuse to live in constant fear of ignorance. I want to know about the ways of destruction to prevent and defend myself from it. Isn't this how open source security is supposed to work?

      What DB should do is learn what Radikal has written and build themselves stronger. The reasons DB is trying to censor Radikal is either because of laziness or (most likely) greed ("the security will cost too much!").

      But that's only *my* opinion. God Bless America!

    43. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The United States had thus far supported Google's rights in this arena. If DMCA isn't struck down, or gets worse, then Google should look for another home country -- and so should I.


      You fucking pussy. This is a typical attitude of a computer brat who isn't getting their way. 225 years ago when the American colonists were being held hostage by an oppressive British government, they didn't give up, shrug, and move to Mexico! They took up arms and fought for freedom god damnit! The DMCA must be struck down and if our bought-and-paid-for Congressmen aren't willing to do it then it's time to organize another revolution and overthrow the corrupt regime we have in office. A revolution every few hundred years is a good thing to keep the government from becoming fat, greedy, corrupt, and content. Look at ancient Rome for instance. They went for a thousand years with a corrupt government and it wasn't until the barbarians overthrew them that anything changed. Do you want to live a content life of oppression or a dangerous life of freedom? Choose wisely, because when the revolution is over, yours may be the first body against the wall for the executions.

    44. Re:subsidiaries by ChaosDiscordSimple · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?

      Did the September 11th hijackers visit such a helpful web site to learn how to hijack planes? No? Then what harm can putting the information up have? The bad guys already know. Can putting the information up potentially help? Certainly. I wish more bad guys would put their evil plans up on the web. Then the FBI could read the documents, identify the security weaknesses the bad guys are planning on using and fix the security weaknesses.

      Criminals are perfectly capable and willing to spread censored information amoung themselves. After all, if you've decided to sacrifice your life to kill innocents, what's going to stop you from making some photocopies?

    45. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your post smells of troll, but I'll bite...

      You compared child porn to documents instructing how to commit terrorism - there is a major difference between the two.

      If I wrote a game that virtually depicted a school massacre, it would be in poor taste - but legal nonetheless. Same as if I wrote a flight simulator that gave you points for crashing planes into buildings and killing people. This is akin to publishing information about how to commit terrorism.

      Now on the other hand, if I personally went on a school massacre, somehow managed to survive, and used the footage as part of a game - that wouldn't be legal, it would be exhibit A.

    46. Re:subsidiaries by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The argument that lost Napster the case was that their infrastructure was used (almost) *exclusively* to share songs.

      Phones have lots of uses. So does Google. Although I imagine xs4all has more uses than just posting anarchist links, and they lost, so what do I know.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    47. Re:subsidiaries by Boronx · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Putting national guardsmen in our airports with M16s (do they have magic terrorist detecting powers) to watch over law abiding citizens is unpatriotic. Holding people without charges is unpatriotic. Even with the best intentions.

      Why? Because there are some things more important than the war against terrorism, but Ascroft and his cronies don't see it.

    48. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      calm down you chump.

    49. Re:subsidiaries by jthuck · · Score: 1

      censorship (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=censorship)

      n 1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censoring]
      Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

    50. Re:subsidiaries by jgerman · · Score: 2
      Number one q.e.d is for proofs, wich you rhetoric is not. You don't even have a conclusion, much less something to prove. So why don't you spend a little less time attempting to give the appearance of having something worthwhile to say and a little more on thinking about what you're saying.

      No the FBI wouldn't shut them down, they might however pay them a little visit, and keep them under a close eye however. They have the right to post those instructions if they wish. Free speech is not contingent on protecting the current system, IT'S TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHO ARE DISCONTENT WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND WANT TO CHANGE. It doesn't protect your right to say the world is flat, it's so I can say the world is round and not fear persecution. Or that I think the government should be disbanded, or anything else that is seen as subversive enough for the government to want to censor me.


      Plus take it to another level, deeper than your knee-jerk thin thought reaction. We're talking about making pubically available these instructions. What's better to have an underground manual floating around that ONLY people who want to cause harm will see, or public instructions that anyone (including the authorities responsible for security and safety) can see? If theres a weakness in the system and it's public, those responsible will have to make it more secure. If the information was not available, not only would Joe Schmoe not have any idea that he was in danger, the authorities would have no idea where likely attacks were to occur.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    51. Re:subsidiaries by jgerman · · Score: 2
      No you are completely off base:


      If a certain piece of paper with letters on it is free speach or an illegal encaurae of terrorism is a descission of a court.


      If it's a decision of a court whether or not something you've said is free speech or not, you can never trust that ANYTHING you say is free speech.


      You're so abolutely wrong it's hard to even begin to tear you to shreds. Free Speech is Free Speech, case closed. If that's really the German version of free speech, they don't have free speech at all. It's such a perversion of the concept that it's entirely useless.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    52. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They took up arms and fought for freedom god damnit!

      I have no problem with this. However, currently any effective weapon is currently "against the law". Also, most other Americans are too content with their shallow lifestyles to care. Therefore, I'll look to relocate if it ever gets worse here than it is elsewhere.
    53. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German Constitution Article 5: Everybody has the right to distribute and express his OPINION freely as well as to inform himself freely."[...]

      So let's say I do not believe the Holocaust happened in the sense it is popularly portrayed. I must be free to state this opinion in your fine land of liberty, right? And I can inform myself my reading up on the controvery, expositions of BOTH sides of which must be freely available there for the reading, right?

      Bwa ha ha ha!

    54. Re:subsidiaries by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Until the 1950's it was perfectly legal to threaten politicians (verbally). I suppose that there were limits, but they were never reached (or I didn't hear of it). The "don't threaten a politician" act in the 50's was instigated, as far as I remember, by the secret service so that they wouldn't have to do so much work tracking people down who were just being silly. ... Or so that they could make them shut up. It has no justification under the US constitution. This doesn't mean that you can get it overthrown. The constitution only protects what the courts are willing for it to protect.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    55. Re:subsidiaries by frost22 · · Score: 2

      German Constitution Article 5: Everybody has the right to distribute and express his OPINION freely as well as to inform himself freely.
      Pfft. As we all know, the German Constitution in general, and this very article especially, are not worth the paper they are written on.
      This Article even contains that infamous sentence "Censorship does not happen" and is one of the most dishonest and misleading texts ever written in a constitutional document.
      Note that Par. 2 of this Article reads "These rights can be limited by general laws, laws for the protection of minors, and laws for the protection of personal honour." Which means, by about anything.

      German Constituonal practice furthermore interprets constitutional rights not as absolute immutable rights but as entitlements that can and will be balanced with about boatloads of other entitlements. So you will find court decisions denying your right of free speech or freedom of information for sake of boatloads of other interests.

      Oh, and of course, "Censorship" (which doesn't happen, you know) also doesn's mean censorship but some kind of complicated "pre-censorship" - related to but not identical with the "prior restraint" concept in the US). And, of course, in reality this also happens frequently.

      This is a fine example of what 50 years of self-serving politicians and obedient judges can do to an apparently simple legal text.

      They recently banned Unreal Tournament. Censorhsip doesn't happen, you know - we have that in the Constitution.

      Pissers...

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    56. Re:subsidiaries by oldsk8r · · Score: 1

      The EU Human Rights Act grants EU citizens the right to free speech, however it also states that you are responsible for any thing you say and can be held liable for it. Does that make any sense to any othe EU citizens out there? I think this means that I can't be stopped from saying something (except when bound by the Official Secrets Act for instance), but I'd better be very careful about what I say. So much for free speech.

    57. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I fully support banning such stuff from the
      > internet....

      > Well, IMO, I *don't*.

      so in your opinion you don't support banning ...?

      > What DB should do is learn what Radikal has
      > written

      don't you think that they read it before going
      to court? i have a hard time imagining that
      they could have wone the case against xs4nl
      by telling the court "we don't know what is
      written there, but we know the people who wrote
      it are dangerous so please ban it"

      > and build themselves stronger.

      good advice. can you go into some detail how to
      protect railway lines that go across open country?
      with level railway crossings, open access to
      stations. fence it all in? build bridges to
      replace the level crossings, and frisk everybody
      entering a station?

      > But that's only *my* opinion. God Bless America!

      well, with your ability to reason you need god's
      blessings

    58. Re:subsidiaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company such as Google should not operate in a country where free speech is not lawful.

      Well, then we'll have to go back to altavista, since google wouldn't exist then...

    59. Re:subsidiaries by sheyal · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh... So why isn't Germany fully enganged blowing up Palestinians or Israelis right now? There's a tone of innocent people dying there. Or why hasn't Norway invaded Iraq. Same story. Why didn't Zaire jump in against Serbia when Bosnians were being murdered and exiled?

      Your logic is amazingly flawed.

      The US got into the war when we were attacked, both times. Before then we supported and supplied the GOOD GUYS in the war (unlike the Germans who both times supported the BAD GUYS rather directly).

      Wow, it's not all so cut and dried now, is it?

      Finally, I will be sure to convey your opinion of:

      'It's just a shame that in a way America is "bigger, stronger and richer" from the blood of the people that died in the camps and on the battle field while they didn't get involved because it "wasn't their problem". '

      to the families of the thousands and thousands of AMERICANS that lost their lives at Omaha Beach (and other D-day offenses), to rescue a country that "wasn't their own" and a people that "weren't their own" and to solve a problem that "wasn't their own". I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear of your gratitude.

      Personally, _I_ think you may have ALREADY been smokin something. I hope its good.

      Ciao!

    60. Re:subsidiaries by sheyal · · Score: 1

      "good advice. can you go into some detail how to
      protect railway lines that go across open country?
      with level railway crossings, open access to
      stations. fence it all in? build bridges to
      replace the level crossings, and frisk everybody
      entering a station?"

      You just gave three. Sounds like a good start. Those were even off the top of your head, I bet. Imagine what a hundred authorities on the matter could come up with in a week.

      Free speech isn't something you just "turn off" because you don't want to think about it.

      Ciao!

    61. Re:subsidiaries by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      there are some things more important than the war against terrorism

      Like being coherent. The National Guard is in the airport to protect citizens, not threaten them. But you knew that.

      Holding people without charges is unpatriotic. Even with the best intentions.

      FYI, you can't be unpatriotic with the best of intentions. It's a contradiction in terms. It's saying someone hates his country with the best of intentions. Can't be done. I think you mean their patriotism is misguided.

      Questioning someone's patriotism has a long and ignoble history. It's a form of demogoguery. People can be wrong and still be patriots and patriots have no monopoly on the truth. But you knew that.

    62. Re:subsidiaries by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2


      Your own post contradicts you.

      So? you failed to point out the contradiction.


      German Constitution Article 5: Everybody has the right to distribute and express his OPINION freely as well as to inform himself freely.
      People do need to be know how terroism works, otherwise we just have trust some secret cabel to tell us what to do. That's what free speech is all about.


      So: you need a construction plan for a fire bomb to protect yourself against fire bombs?

      I would say a descent emergency plan in case of fire makes fare more sence.

      Probably supported by fire extinctures at the right places.

      Probably supported by an emergency response team (fire guards).

      There is no secret cable telling anything: there is a public law suit, held at a public court, supported by public law opened by a public listed company against an other public listed company and the whole issue is public discussed at /.

      How much more public do you need? BTW: its common sence in the wesern european society that it is not "necessary" to have such informations on the net.

      We think that there are two kinds of freedoms: the freeedom of free speach and the freedom of being protected from people who call for destruction of men and live and property.

      If have still not found the time to read the stuff this thread is about you probably should. The blocked web page does not tell people how terrorism works. It calls people to commit terroristc acts. It tells people where and how to bomb. It tells people which kind of bombs are most effective and appropriated.

      I realy doubt that the site would be legal in the US.

      I'm pretty sure a similar side calling for bombing a institution in the united states with dedicated plans how to achieve such a bombing would be declared illegal and closed in the same way it is done here in europe.

      Free speach ends where the freedom of the other guy is hurt.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    63. Re:subsidiaries by andrewski · · Score: 1

      No. Text that describes how to take an airliner into a building, or cutting power to a train, or hacking MS IIS or almost anything else aren't illegal in the US. Look up the terrorist's hand book or the anarchy cookbook or many other things at textfiles.org!

    64. Re:subsidiaries by nagora · · Score: 1
      The other is to interview those who work in the pentagon, who are prohibited from talking about it,

      I think that was my point.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    65. Re:subsidiaries by thewalledcity · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure a similar side calling for bombing a institution in the united states with dedicated plans...
      Ok, the difference is this. If the information was advocating and calling for the destruction of properity and lose of life, that speech would be restricted (because it is intended in incite violence).
      This happened a few years back in the states with a group of Anti-abortionists had a web site that made "wanted posters" of abortion clinic doctors and put big Xs through them when a few were killed. In this case the info was not an order to go out and use the information to kill people, just simple information.

    66. Re:subsidiaries by maxpublic · · Score: 2

      Someone could argue with equal logic that the people who oppose Ashcroft the most are the terrorists.

      Given some of the things that Ashcroft has said, I'm rather sure he believes that this is the case.

      When the question is framed this way, the debate is over what approach leads to the minimum loss of freedom.

      No, the debate extends to whether or not any proposed loss of freedom is both worth the consequences and will have any real effect on terrorism. The rabid 'safety before all else' folks have fundamentally failed to prove that any of the legislation passed or considered will do anything to stem terrorism.

      And then we could go further to ask why we're a target in the first place and if there's anything we could do to not make ourselves a target in the future. I don't see anyone hankering to to blow up Canadians; maybe they're doing something right that we're doing wrong....

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    67. Re:subsidiaries by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      The rabid 'safety before all else' folks have fundamentally failed to prove that any of the legislation passed or considered will do anything to stem terrorism

      A common bit of confusion here. Whether the measures are effective and whether they are a reasonable tradeoff are two separate issues. If the measures are not effective, then they should not be used regardless of their limits on freedom. It's given that the measures by themselves will reduce freedom. The question of whether it's worth it begins only after the effectiveness of the measures in fighting terrorism is agreed on.

      If you pose the question of how effective Ashcroft's methods are in fighting terrorism, one can take either side without being unpatriotic.

      And then we could go further to ask why we're a target in the first place and if there's anything we could do to not make ourselves a target in the future.

      Let the terrorists ask themselves the same question. I'd like to think bin Laden is asking himself that question right now.

    68. Re:subsidiaries by Furrybuddha · · Score: 0

      Just for your note, I find it quite ridiculous for you to refer to Germany as the Bad Guys in world war one. I think it's rather ridiculous to assume that due to the fact that they lost the war that they were the "bad guys". They were bound by the same problems as Brittain that forced them to become involved (diplomatic alliances etc.) I, despite my extreme anti-nazi position, am of the oppinion that Germany winning world war one would have resulted in a much better world, less marred by the tragedies that followed due to the horrible resolution that came of their loss. World war One Germany was not evil. I find it rather difficult to understand how someone using the words Good guys and Bad guys can have the will to even put forward the question of "Wow, it's not all so cut and dried now, is it?". Maybe you should consider that maybe the problem isn't in my expectation that countries should act not just for the good of THEIR citizens but for the good of all people, but that countries do not do so. I believe that all countries should be involved in trying to resolve the conflicts around the world. On the other hand, those countries that you list who are not getting involved, are different from America in a very large way. They are older breeds of countries based in shared heritage and lineage of their peoples. They can justitfy to their citizens that it is a dispute between other peoples and that it is not their place to get involved. I am not saying that this is a correct view to have, what I am saying is that America, and Canada and nations like them that are based in diversity, do not have that excuse. They are tied in to the entire world through their citizens and so must take a global position. As to the question of my gratitude towards the families of those who lost their lives during the D-day offenses. They have what they're family died for, revenge. America came in and got for its people what it wanted, bloody revenge. Just as it is in the east now. America does not enter wars for other nations, they enter it for themselves.

  6. And the interesting part is... by Munelight · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Deutsche Bahn will file suit in Germany, where all three search engine companies have subsidiaries, because it feels it would not stand a chance in a U.S. court because of freedom of speech allowed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

    Have these people not been paying attention lately?

    1. Re:And the interesting part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They obviously haven't heard of the latest developments in internet routing technology: The local government of Duesseldorf wants to restrict access to websites which violate German law but can not be shut down because they are hosted in countries where the content is legal. Therefore a german university and Webwasher teamed up to develop a transparent filtering system which is supposed to scale well enough to be installed by every ISP. The Deutsche Bahn could just have the Google-URLs added to the filter and avoid a costly lawsuit.

    2. Re:And the interesting part is... by dryueh · · Score: 1
      Have these people not been paying attention lately?

      Not to slashdot, anyway (sic).

      Deutschland hat angst von Google! Schade!

    3. Re:And the interesting part is... by petis · · Score: 2

      > Have these people not been paying attention lately?

      :-) Probably not.

      From google's cache: "Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content."

      I wonder how the german court will look on the disclaimer. If they find google guilty then it is perhaps the end of silly disclaimers.

      <disclaimer> This post represents the official view of the voices in my head. </ disclaimer>

    4. Re:And the interesting part is... by sugrshack · · Score: 1
      It all depends on interpretation of international law. Germany does not have any specific laws which protect freedom of speech (and following that, freedom of expression); you can be prosecuted for saying certain things... it will be interesting to see whether or not German courts can have any effect on an American company.

      of course this is all ridiculous anyway... if you don't want people to read it, DON'T PUT IT ONLINE.

      --
      I can't believe it's not lard!
    5. Re:And the interesting part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the freedom of speech and expression are specified within the German constitution.

      Other countries had to write amendments to include that. HAH!

    6. Re:And the interesting part is... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't that somewhat akin to the great firewall of China?

    7. Re:And the interesting part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "of course this is all ridiculous anyway... if you don't want people to read it, DON'T PUT IT ONLINE."

      The page they're trying to get unlinked and removed isn't their own. They're trying to erase all knowledge of someone else's page. Hence, the need for all this litigation I guess.

    8. Re:And the interesting part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what people keep telling Mr. Buessow (the driving force behind this), but he insists that there's a difference because the German firewall is backed by law and isn't used to suppress opinions.

    9. Re:And the interesting part is... by sqlrob · · Score: 2

      You mean the German Constitution written in 1949?

      Gee, that came before another Constition written more than 150 years prior that happened to have free speech amended in.

      And the German Constitution has free speech "[limited by] provisions of general statutes". Doesn't sound particularly free to me.

    10. Re:And the interesting part is... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      Well ... Radikal is expressing some sort of opinion, no?

      Strangely enough, the copy in Google's cache (as linked to previously) doesn't appear to have any of the actual banned information on it. I tried doing a search for it using terms in the article's alleged title, and couldn't find anything.

      The page is crowing about censorship, without linking us to the information censored - which I find, well, odd.

      Or did Google remove the information from cache already? Looks to me like Radikal may have done so for them by replacing the articles with the (almost incomprehensible) main page that now shows up.

      Oops.

      D

    11. Re:And the interesting part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as a result, if your husband is on a moon mission and it looks like he's going to die, you won't have half of the country's reporters on your front lawn. How horrible.

    12. Re:And the interesting part is... by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      And as a result, if your husband is on a moon mission and it looks like he's going to die, you won't have half of the country's reporters on your front lawn. How horrible.


      But also as a result, if your President looks like he's going to crush his enemies and shred the Constitution, you do have your reports camped out on the White House lawn. It's a fair trade, I think.
  7. What were the articles about? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Could somebody who had a chance to see these articles tell us what they were about? Maybe at least this way we could understand what DB don't want us reading?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:What were the articles about? by Munelight · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I understand, they were about how to sabotage the railway system, and were put up to protest the transportation of radioactive materials using said railway system.

    2. Re:What were the articles about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the original article. There's a link to it.

      The offending site contains instructions on how to sabotage railwaylines and -equipment.

    3. Re:What were the articles about? by cholokoy · · Score: 1

      From the infoworld article:

      Deutsche Bahn recently sent letters to all three U.S. search engine operators asking them to remove the hyperlinks to the online copies of two articles from the German-language left-wing extremist publication, XXXXXX (I deleted them or I might be next), which has been outlawed in Germany. The articles detail how to cut power on parts of the railway system.


      This was a very counter-productive way of making the information available by suing Google so now the cat is out of the bag.

      --
      Return the bells of Balangiga.
    4. Re:What were the articles about? by Joakim+A · · Score: 1

      It's a newspaper, headline says it all:

      Radikal

      A newspaper from - and for the radikal / autonomous left

    5. Re:What were the articles about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could at least TRY to read the infoworld article that is mentioned in the post you lazy cunt

    6. Re:What were the articles about? by sopuli · · Score: 1
      Could somebody who had a chance to see these articles tell us what they were about? Maybe at least this way we could understand what DB don't want us reading?



      This (Google cache) is what they don't want you to read.

    7. Re: What were the articles about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's manuals on how to sabotage the railway signs and power-lines. (Don't know the english term, but the lines above the track which supply the power for the engines).

    8. Re:What were the articles about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The articles start describing the axle counters used to determine the length of trains passing over. Isolating these via your implements of your choice would cause all the signal lights to go to red for safety.

      Put this through Babelfish for a (dodgy) translation.

    9. Re:What were the articles about? by Phili · · Score: 1

      I read a few articles about it and it basicly is as follows.

      In Germany there is some resistment against nuclear energy. The goverment is not moving as fast as some groups may like, to abandon nuclear energy. This left wing radical groups try to block the movement of the waste leaving the power plants to their destination. This movement is in 99% done with the railroad. So now the task is to block the railroad. And for that this 'newspaper' was written an artikel of how to change the signals etc.

      This newspaper was hosted by XS4ALL and now moved.
      There has been a ruling to take down the sides from a dutch judge. And it was taken down. All the leftovers (links to the side) are now on target.

      I found the orginal text "KLEINER LEITFADEN ZUR BEHINDERUNG VON BAHNTRANSPORTEN ALLER ART" [Small introduction to hindering any transportation by railway] today with no problem.

      The information once in the internet can hardly be removed. It is almost imposible. As seen here.

    10. Re:What were the articles about? by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      This [216.239.51.100] (Google cache) is what they don't want you to read.

      OMG!

      The page is so stupendously ugly Google should be sued until they destroy all copies!
  8. Wayback by benjymous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I assume if they're sucessful with sueing Google, then they'll go after the Wayback Machine's archive of the site next

    --
    Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
    1. Re:Wayback by beebware · · Score: 1

      And I've just visited the site via my works network which has a proxy cache with 14 day time out. I'll extend it 365 on this site so we can be next :D

  9. Not the cache. by perlyking · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to clarify its not just the cache, its actually the links and its not to their site but articles that detail how to cut power on parts of the railway system.
    Its not *their* site they want removing.

    --
    no sig.
    1. Re:Not the cache. by GnomeKing · · Score: 1

      So basically they will keep on sueing until google prevents returning certain pages which detail this information?

      I dread to think when someone decides to sue google over the DMCA for allowing people to easily circumvent copy protection mechanisms by searching for a crack

      Google isnt responsible for the results they return - are they?

    2. Re:Not the cache. by benjymous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google isnt responsible for the results they return - are they?

      Just like Napster weren't responsible for the copyrighted music that it's users were sharing?

      --
      Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
    3. Re:Not the cache. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about testing out Freenet with this stuff.

    4. Re:Not the cache. by Alsee · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Just like Napster weren't responsible for the copyrighted music that it's users were sharing?

      Correct. Napster losing in court was bull. It's the same as the Betamax case where the movie industry tried to make VRC's illegal. They fought that case all the way to the supreme court.

      File transfer is an extremely common program feature. I have at least a dozzen programs on my computer that allow me to transmit any file - and not a single one is a "Napster clone". Game services support it. Instant messengers supports it. E-mail supports it. FTP supports it. Web broswers support it. IRC supprts it. Remote administration supports it. Virtual Private Network (VPN) supports it. The list goes on and on.

      Any of those programs can be used to transfer any type of file. I'm sure every single one of those programs has been used to transfer a copyrighted file by someone at some time. Guess we have to make them all illegal.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  10. More proof that there is NO perfect country by bluGill · · Score: 2

    Just more proof that there is no perfect country. The US has problems, Canada has problems, UK, Germany, France, Spain, and every other major country you can name has problems.

    So here in the US we have to deal with the DMCA and the like (which we are unfortunatly pushing on everyone else). Germany just bans free speech, which at least in the US we consider golden.

    Or is only in the US that we consider useless speech like this worth protecting. I wouldn't be surprized, and I can see the point, even though I disagree (that is it is worth pretecting despite being useless)

    1. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is freedom of speech in Germany, as part of the constitution. The main difference is that free speech is considered to be one of many rights, not "the #1 amendment", so it is more often weighted against other rights.
      As we all know, once lawyers start to weigh and argue about things, anything can happen and right or wrong isn't really a matter anymore.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The main difference is that free speech is considered to be one of many rights, not "the #1 amendment", so it is more often weighted against other rights.

      Where "amendment" means "afterthought" or "add-on" or "not in the original vision".

    3. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by sdo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tom, you're confused about the United States Constitution. The ammendments were added after the original document was drafted (and thus they're "ammendments") and they're numbered in the order in which they were added. It's a fairly difficult process to have the consitution ammended (it requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature).

      At the moment there are 27 ammendments with some VERY important ones further down the list. For example, the 15th Ammendment gave all citizens the right to vote regardless of race or color.

      It just seems that the First, Second, and Fourth are the ones most commonly under attack in the United States (see sig). It doesn't mean that they get priority over other ammendments.

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    4. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by sqlrob · · Score: 3, Informative
      What freedom of speech? It doesn't exist.

      Read Article 5 Section 2 here. Rather pulls the "free" out of "free speech" doesn't it?

    5. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amendment: The act of amending. syn correction

      Amending: 1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
      2 a : to change or modify for the better : IMPROVE b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

      It does not mean afterthought in this context, you nitwit. Go re-read your American history.

    6. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Crapflooder+Supreme · · Score: 1

      Ireland is perfect. :-P

      --
      "Don't worry, it's not loaded." --Terry Kath
    7. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Or is only in the US that we consider useless
      >speech like this worth protecting. I wouldn't be
      >surprized, and I can see the point, even though
      >I disagree (that is it is worth pretecting
      >despite being useless)

      Actually, the current law of Germany was approved by all west-allies (USA, UK, France). They law state that everyone has the right to express his opinions or to inform himself about other opinions *as long* as these opinions aren't contra the german constitution or are trying to violating other people.

      That is mainly to pretect the german republic against communism and to prevent another case of a anti-democratic group (like the nazis) get all the power.

    8. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Pope · · Score: 1

      Nah, it rains too much! :)

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    9. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      Well ... first off, I'm not sure how seriously to take anyone who talks about "ammendments" and "ammending" the Constitution anyway. But, that being said ...

      The ten amendments which make up the Bill of Rights are qualitatively different from the others. They were not added to the Constitution after it was in place, like all the others. They were part of the original document ratified by the existing States. And in fact, the order in which they appear was almost as contentious a subject of debate as what they actually say. It is no coincidence that they appear in the order they do.

      Legally, of course, there's no difference -- by definition, any amendment, once in place, is part of the law of the land. But there is a moral and historical difference, and it's silly to deny it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    10. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So here in the US we have to deal with the
      > DMCA and the like (which we are unfortunatly
      > pushing on everyone else). Germany just bans
      > free speech, which at least in the US
      > we consider golden.

      sure. try to talk about the design of a device
      circumvent copy protection in the USA

    11. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. It just means that _your_ rights end just where those of _others_ begin.

      regards,
      Stephan

    12. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a shame. I thought they tought US History in high school in this day in age.

    13. Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country by sqlrob · · Score: 2

      Always assume the worst with laws, it'll happen.

      There is no limitation of what can/can't be legislated to restrict the right to free speech. It could conceivebly be legislated that you can't say anything that would hurt anyone's feelings, and that is effectively in the German Constitution anyway. What if someone argues that telling them to actually complete their work at work hurts their feelings? What then?

      The US has the same your rights end where others begin (see the oft quoted example of yelling fire in a movie theatre).

  11. Not suing in America by blankmange · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Notice that DB is not suing Google in an American court, citing that they would probably not be successful due to our freedom of speech laws....interesting juxtaposition with our constant bashing of other countries (NZ for ex) in limiting their citizens access/freedom to speech and info.... Here's to Google, Yahoo, and AltaVista -- stick to your guns!!!

    --
    ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
  12. Forbidden Access by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 3, Funny

    Too bad its apache, for if it was IIS then I could just hack in...



    Save money- vote Republican

    1. Re:Forbidden Access by ReluctantBadger · · Score: 0


      "I could just hack in..." Yeah, of course you could, you're so 3l33t. If IIS is properly configured by a clueful admin, it's just as secure as Apache. It's all down to the person administering the box.

    2. Re:Forbidden Access by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      its a sig, dumbass...
      and I wouldn't dream of voting for your repulican party... republicans maybe...

    3. Re:Forbidden Access by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      I agree. However, I would bet there is a much greater chance of an apache box having a 'clueful admin' than a iis box having a 'clueful admin'.
      If an iis administrator got to be clueful, wouldn't he then switch over to apache?

    4. Re:Forbidden Access by ReluctantBadger · · Score: 0

      Take my situation. I've changed all the intranet servers over to Apache on OpenBSD, and all future internal stuff will be done in PHP. I cannot change our web application server boxes (that our clients use) which are running Win2k/IIS/ASP because the apps have been in development for over 18 months and management will not drop that much code after the money they spent. The Win2k decision was made well before I joined my present company. Being clueful is great, but don't forget that if you've got pressure/orders from above, you have to do the best you can. If you're stuck with IIS, learn how to use it properly. Use the available tools, docs and code to lock it down, and then keep up to date with patches and test out any potential exploits.

    5. Re:Forbidden Access by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      good to know thanks -- I guess this a better sig

    6. Re:Forbidden Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the next new feature gets added and it doesn't have the %hex decoding done right and it opens up the box till ms gets around to figuring out what whent wrong again. Most exploits for ISS are out in the field for weeks before MS even hears about them.

  13. Dont they realize... by bludstone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...that by attacking sites like this, they are simply drawing MORE attention to what they are trying to shut down?

    By now dozens of people have mirrored the site, and the possibility of it going away forever has diminished greatly.

    Fools.

    --

    no .sig
  14. The Dutch have learned by Lucky_Pierre · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If they don't comply with a German request, the 1st SS Panzer Division will be rolling through the streets of Amsterdam in 24 hours.

    --
    "Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
    1. Re:The Dutch have learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to preemptively announce le French surrendre, even though we 'aven't been sued yet.

    2. Re:The Dutch have learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SS didn't have a tank division. The Schutz Staffel was a ground unit. You must have missed one of your Ingsoc lessons. Time for re-education.

      BTW: Will someone please tell the Dutch to go to some remote, uninhabited corner of the globe, like Madagascar, New Zealand or the Falklands, and take l33t holier-than-thou marijuana-smoking gay-marrying euthanasiastic liberalism with them? Thank you...

      BTW2: Does Amsterdam actually have streets? I thought they had 30 foot wide sidewalks and a three foot wide car lane. In case some poor ninety year old has a heart attack while smoking marijuana and contemplating being euthanasiaficated.

      BTW3: Do the Germans give requests? I thought they gave Befehlen. Verdammte Niederlaender! Es lebe Deutschland! Aus dem Weg, ihr verdammter Niederlaender. Ein dritten Mal werden wir nicht scheitern! Wart mal, wir haben schon dreimal gescheitert! Scheisse... Vielleicht sollen wir nun Frankreich wieder erobern, zumindest ist es bei den Franzoesen (und Franzoesinnen ;) keine echte Herausforderung.

  15. Why Yahoo? by Cutriss · · Score: 2

    I'm not going to argue the (stupid) merits of the lawsuit, but why Yahoo? Yahoo isn't a search engine anymore than Microsoft's DNS error page is. It's powered by Google. If suing Google gets Google to fix the issue they have, then it'll be summarily fixed on Yahoo's page as well. Yahoo just plain has nothing to do with this, outside of using Google's search tool.

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    1. Re:Why Yahoo? by Hydrogenoid · · Score: 1

      It is powered by Google's search engine, yes, but it does not use the same database...
      Engine != data.

      Look at hit stats on a website, their crawler addresses differ...

    2. Re:Why Yahoo? by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      Possibly for the same reason as the nazi auction thing - Yahoo has an office in Germany.

      While they may not be able to do anything to google, they could possibly to Yahoo.

  16. agreed by koekepeer · · Score: 1

    it seems pretty silly to me. why solve the problem at the level of a search engine. it makes more sense to block the sites themselves (as they did with the xs4all pages), since people will find the pages eventually, even without the almighty google.

    this case is stupid anyway, since the pages have been on the xs4all server for 4/5 years already*, and now they started to complain all of the sudden.

    * link (in dutch) http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/radikal.html

    1. Re:agreed by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      why solve the problem at the level of a search engine. it makes more sense to block the sites themselves

      Unfortunately, blocking the sites that have the content doesn't eliminate it from Google's cache. Even if you can't get to the original site, you can retrieve the documents from the cache.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  17. But by Manlobbi · · Score: 1

    Surely the people who DB should be sueing are those that host the content, rather than those which point at it? - But then we all know how it is with caching these days? The content could probably be pulled yet the mirros/ caches would be lting around for a while.

    As for it being quick, well DB suffered a lot of bad press from a 'couple' (definately one really bad accident that I remember) of accidents and they are the target for green activists on a yearly basis so ... I expect from a corporate view they have to be seen to be protecting their customers. A court case is probably far cheaper than upgrading the carriages on the railway.

    1. Re:But by benjymous · · Score: 1

      The original host's url gives a "403 Forbidden" error, so I guess they have done already

      --
      Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
    2. Re:But by -brazil- · · Score: 1

      They've already successfully sued the content provider. But the want the cache and links to copies of the content removed - getting them all shut down could take forever.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

  18. Re:Maccy-Dee by buzban · · Score: 1
    Fast food is the answer, Maccy-Dee

    that's as true today as it was the first time it was spoken...

  19. Odd parent post by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    obviously DB can't ask nicely for *other peoples pages* to be removed - google would remove the pages if the terrorists* asked to, but not if the target of the terrorism asked. So they have to ask using lawyers. (* = supporters of direct action if you prefer to be more precise). But moving radioactive stuff around the country is going to cause controversy whether it is via train, truck (even scarier!) or barge. All of those crash at times.

  20. Contents by hoofie · · Score: 2, Informative

    As far as I can tell, the site may refer to transport of Nuclear Waste Material via Train across Germany. There has been massive demonstrations against this before in Germany. Possibly they details Deutsche Bahnhof's schedules, movement plans etc. - I can see why DB wouldn't want that published.

    In the UK, the train movements from power stations etc. are available and are on regular schedules. The security around them isn't very high, but then the flask the material is carried in weighs quite a few tons, is solid steel, and you'd need an extremely expensive facility just to open it again.

    1. Re:Contents by Puggs · · Score: 1

      Damn right about the UK movements...

      Whilst working for BNFL, they showed me a video of a train doing about 100mph into one of their flasks - It hardly had a scratch on it & the train was demolished :) - funniest thing i ever saw
      IIRC, they also dropped one from pretty high up - same result

    2. Re:Contents by mccalli · · Score: 5, Funny
      In the UK, the train movements from power stations etc. are available and are on regular schedules.

      The regular schedule being "we haven't a clue when we're leaving or arriving either, and yes - you will be delayed along the way". As per every other UK train.

      Cheers,
      Iam

    3. Re:Contents by hoofie · · Score: 1

      Allegedly though, they are not very fire resistant.

      Picture of a flask train for the curious (uk).

    4. Re:Contents by Tim+C · · Score: 2

      In the UK, the train movements from power stations etc. are available and are on regular schedules.

      Really?

      They should start carrying fare paying passengers - they'd make an absolute fortune ;-)

      Cheers,

      Tim

    5. Re:Contents by Puggs · · Score: 1

      lol - they never told me about that part

      wonder why? ;)

    6. Re:Contents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be aware that under the new RIP act in the UK, publishing information about the movement of nuclear waste is actually now against the law.

    7. Re:Contents by frost22 · · Score: 2
      Possibly they details Deutsche Bahnhof's schedules, movement plans
      No. They detail how to disable certain well selected parts of the electronic rail control systems, in order to force Deutsche Bundebahn to operate their trains at crawling speeds in the sabotaged areas. This way they attempt to sabotage DB's operations without endangering peoples lives.

      And, given the very dangerouis sabotage actions we have seen here in the past (like destroying rails, short-circuiting high power supply wires etc) I'd regard this as much milder form of violence.
      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  21. Lawsuit? by suwalski · · Score: 2

    Can a lawsuit really be filed for linking to material that no longer exists on a server (xs4all)? I would expect, at *MOST* that there would be a demand to remove the links, but since the material has been removed anyhow, I don't see the point. THe google bot will get rid of its link at some point.

    1. Re:Lawsuit? by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      If the server doesn't exist, then that's exactly what will happen. The links will magically die. What a waste of time this suit will be.

    2. Re:Lawsuit? by DickPhallus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ya, but the cache is still accessible, and the cache might hang around for a while longer than the links, giving the chance for people to mirror things.

      --

      --
      Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
    3. Re:Lawsuit? by danny · · Score: 2
      Yes, if the links to the removed copy go away, that will just make it easier for people to find the mirrors! But the next step is presumably demanding that Google remove links to all copies of the document (oh dear, I changed byte 34109) from its index...

      Danny.

      --
      I have written over 900 book reviews
  22. Tunnel Vision by BasilBibi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Fascists.

  23. Censorship by Wise+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."
    -- Clare Booth Luce, 1903-1987

    1. Re:Censorship by hettb · · Score: 0
      "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."
      -- Clare Booth Luce, 1903-1987


      Deutsche Bahn are only suing to have the links removed from the German versions of the Google et al, so yes, their cenorship *will* "end at home".

    2. Re:Censorship by Reziac · · Score: 2

      No good deed goes unpunished. -- Clare Boothe Luce

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  24. can of worms? by vagnerr · · Score: 1

    Interesting. THey want to sue Google and altavista etc for linking to illegal content. Does that mean that people linking to google will be next, and then those who link to those who link to google. Before long they will have to sue themselves. This could get very silly

    --
    -- Vagnerr - (www.vagnerr.com) Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  25. archive.org by Andrew+Lockhart · · Score: 1

    Will they sue the Internet Archive too? I'm not sure if this contains links to the offending rail sabotage information (I'm a stupid USian), but I would just guess that it does.

  26. Why so sure the US would be any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Previous comments somehow assume that freedom of speech is better in the States. What with the Patriot Act et al, instructions on how to hijack airplanes or blow up powerstations would be taken down and decached before you could say "Deutschland".

  27. that is *not* funny by koekepeer · · Score: 1

    my god, it was more than half a century ago.

    i don't care if i burn karma this way, i just find your "sense of humour" distasteful. bah!

    1. Re:that is *not* funny by dinivin · · Score: 2

      Actually, Hogan's Heroes was only on about 35 years ago. And as silly as it's humour might have been, it was hardly distasteful

      Dinivin

    2. Re:that is *not* funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, who cares? German people suck. I suppose you think that's insulting too. Go cry somewhere else.

  28. Security by obscurity.. by software_non_olet · · Score: 1

    ..and order by law.

    Deutsche Bahn - wasn't that the "Deutsche Reichbahn" half a century ago, who used deported Jews and Eastern Europeans to build their railroads for nothing?

    If only I could give back my German citizenship. Anybody wants to have it for 1,- Euro? For 50 cents?? For a quarter???

    1. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and in trading your nationality, you would choose which nationality? one without a repressed past, one that has no skeletons in the closet? be proud of who/what you are!!!

    2. Re:Security by obscurity.. by software_non_olet · · Score: 1

      Just getting rid of any nationality is enough.

    3. Re:Security by obscurity.. by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I decided to post rather than mod...

      It's VERY important to remember two things...

      Security by obscurity is bad when dealing when computers because computers by their very nature makes it much easier to root out patterns and obscure points of interest.

      Security by obscurity in the physical world is a de facto standard and is paramount to many security issues. For example, like it or not, our goverment uses plain-jane trucks to move radioactive elements, high explosives, deadly biological materials, and large volumes of currency throughout our nation.

      By not having the routes, the trucking schedules and payload information, a high degree of security is available. This is exactly security through obscurity. Would you want this information to be available? I know I sure wouldn't.

      Imagine the cost (because of the physical security requirements) and the greatly increased odds of something bad happening in the event that this information were generally known to the public. I can easily imagine bad things for any number of reasons if this were public information. Since it's not, everything from protects (increasing the odds of accidents) to terrorist attacks are avoided, and this is just the short list.

      In short, in the real world, security through obscurity is not only important, it's paramount to our national security...don't believe me, ask NTSA, NSA, CIA and the FBI as well as just about any other law enforcement agency. It's only with computers that this should be avoided; as a rule of thumb...

    4. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, give back your German citizenship. It's easy. You are called 'Staatenlos' after that. But I don't think you will get a eurocent for that.

    5. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losers like you don't deserve the German citizenship anyway.

    6. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can that be a German tax write-off?

      God I need to get out of Germany!

    7. Re:Security by obscurity.. by software_non_olet · · Score: 1

      1.)
      The original paper is very detailled and specific in it's security aspects. It is explicitely stating that nothing should be damaged, about whose functions one is not certain, because that could endanger humans or transports. The described destructions will hinder the speed of the transports but not endanger them or endanger any human or destruct vital components.
      2.)
      The description was available on the internet for 4 to 5 years by now. It's publication on paper was not forbidden during this time. The German Railroad did know that for years, because they allready tried to block the internet publication twice (without success).
      3.)
      The "Right to Resistance" is an explicit part of the German constitutional law (a result of rewriting the German constitutional law from scratch after World War II).

      Hence the whole action is more of a cesorship than a security issue. Probably (as already said so here in slashdot) nuclear transports are imminent in the near future - a intensely discussed theme in Germany.

      I'm not in favour of force - even if it's only against things. But this stinks of antidemocratic censorship in the name of "security".

    8. Re:Security by obscurity.. by hettb · · Score: 0
      It is very easy to give back your citizenship. Please read 17 of the StAG (Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz, passed in 1999, formerly known as RuStAG - "Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz"):
      Die Staatsangehörigkeit geht verloren
      1. durch Entlassung ( 18 bis 24),
      2. durch den Erwerb einer ausländischen Staatsangehörigkeit ( 25),
      3. durch Verzicht ( 26),
      4. durch Annahme als Kind durch einen Ausländer ( 27),
      5. durch Eintritt in die Streitkräfte oder einen vergleichbaren bewaffneten
      Verband eines ausländischen Staates ( 28) oder
      6. durch Erklärung ( 29).

      Aren't you happy! :)

    9. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Teethgrinder · · Score: 1

      Deutsche Bahn - wasn't that the "Deutsche Reichbahn" half a century ago, who used deported Jews and Eastern Europeans to build their railroads for nothing?

      1.) Is Godwin's law applicable here?
      2.) Try to find one big german company existing for more than 50 years that didnt profit from slave workers. Or international companies with german subsidiaries, for that matter.

      I know that this doesnt make it any better but falling back to crying "Nazi!" in an argument about a company that for the most of the time was actually government controlled and is suing people over something that is clearly illegal in germany only weakens your point.

      Complain about the law. Write your MdB. Point out the fact that banning information about sabotaging rail tracks is pretty stupid as any half-witted radical could probably come up with at least one way to do it himself. But dont fall back on the "ah, they've always been fascists anyway" rhetoric.

      If only I could give back my German citizenship. Anybody wants to have it for 1,- Euro? For 50 cents?? For a quarter???

      Just get the citizenship of another country. AFAIK noone forces you to keep it. But I doubt that it's a tradeable item.

      But I'd seriously be interested which other country you'd choose.

    10. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

      1.) The original paper is very detailled and specific in it's security aspects. It is explicitely stating that nothing should be damaged, about whose functions one is not certain, because that could endanger humans or transports.

      Ah, so, since the paper says not to damage anything, nobody will damage anything. If the paper said not to push the big shiny red button, I'm sure people wouldn't push it, right?

      2.) The description was available on the internet for 4 to 5 years by now. It's publication on paper was not forbidden during this time.

      Ah, so, since it had been around for a little while, it's okay for the government to allow its continued publication in spite of the grave threat to national security it may pose.

      3.) The "Right to Resistance" is an explicit part of the German constitutional law.

      Ah, so all of this is okay since it places nobody at risk. More of a censorship than a security issue? Letting people know where and when nuclear material is being delivered by train is something you've a right to do?

      What the hell kind of fucked-up crack are you smoking?

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    11. Re:Security by obscurity.. by software_non_olet · · Score: 1

      To start with your last sentence:

      I would prefere an earth without political nations. And I think the development is heading into that direction - although I may not live long enough to see it happen.

      This is directly connected to the notion of public security. For example if we had an international internet law with consistant regulations, we wouldn't see such cases as the topic we are discussing about. And big companies wouldn't be able to pick the law and court which fit their (open or hidden) interests best.

      Secondly I did not start calling the German Railway names. They started the discussion by suing (hope I spell that right) the Provider. And they picked the weakest participant for that - avoiding the political discussion, not explaining to the provider, why they see the site as being illegal, not suing (successfully) the original publication (published 5 years ago - of which this site is only a sort of archive) and so on and so forth.

      Justice has to abide to rules, otherwise it's just a powergame. And the German Railway is doing exactly that.

      Finally I exercise my right of free speech, I don't need to write to any MdB (German member of parliament) for that. I'm part of a free world and don't need somebody else to represent me. This slashdot discussion IS democracy - just between you and me. There has never been any other real power in humanity than that of the individual. We have only given it away too often - and all too often in the name of "nations" or "security".

    12. Re:Security by obscurity.. by ChaosDiscordSimple · · Score: 2

      The problem with security through obscurity is that once the information is revealed, it's nearly impossible to stop. The Radikal magazine information is already available to anyone who really wants it. No amount of censorship will stop someone who wants to see it from getting it. Anyone who downloaded it before it was taken down still has a copy. They can email it to others, print it out, hand out photocopies, make handwritten copies, or distribute it in any number of ways. As a civilization, we've spent a great deal of time and effort to make it easy to duplicate information. Stopping the flow of information people want is impossible in all but the most limited of cases.

      Security by obscurity in the physical world is a de facto standard and is paramount to many security issues. For example, like it or not, our goverment uses plain-jane trucks to move radioactive elements, high explosives, deadly biological materials, and large volumes of currency throughout our nation. By not having the routes, the trucking schedules and payload information, a high degree of security is available. This is exactly security through obscurity. Would you want this information to be available? I know I sure wouldn't.

      Great, so by relying on everyone involved keeping this a secret, all it takes is for the secret to leak once and these shipments are put in danger. A single person can unravel the whole thing, perhaps under torture, threat, blackmail, bribery, or simple malice. Spies exist.

      Keeping the information secret does help. It weeds out many potential criminals. It reduces expenses defending against attacks that can't possibly succeed, but might cost money to stop. But if you're relying on it as your sole defense, you're foolish.

    13. Re:Security by obscurity.. by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      The problem with security through obscurity is that once the information is revealed, it's nearly impossible to stop.

      This is true, however, in the context that I explained, schedules are normally not the same for every trip...thus adding to it's security in the event of a leak. There's also the concept of "need to know". Surely you've heard of such a thing. If the concept works for world affairs and national security, i'm fairly sure it can work pretty well for plain-jane trucks.

      Great, so by relying on everyone involved keeping this a secret, all it takes is for the secret to leak once and these shipments are put in danger.

      In a single instance...at least in the context that I used. So, more accurately, "a shipment" would be put in danger.

      Keeping the information secret does help. It weeds out many potential criminals. It reduces expenses defending against attacks that can't possibly succeed, but might cost money to stop. But if you're relying on it as your sole defense, you're foolish.

      Foolish is making assuptions about things that were not asserted. No one said this was the sole source of protection. As such, these tactics are not the sole defense. Nonetheless, these serve to greatly reduce the cost of transport, ease the general public, and greatly enhance security. Like it or not, this type of security IS the first line of defense. Like it or not, it tends to work rather well.

      To the best of my knowledge, no one has asserted anything that supports your "foolish" comment.

    14. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Teethgrinder · · Score: 1

      For example if we had an international internet law with consistant regulations, we wouldn't see such cases as the topic we are discussing about.

      I admire your optimism. If previous examples of legislation getting propagated internationally are any indication we're likely in for more trouble than less. I think every recent legal stupidity performed in the US (software patents, DMCA, SSSCA/DCPwhatever) got introduced to the EU (although I admit I'm not up to date as to what actually happened to these). The only slight chance that may be left is that to the best of my knowledge, no european country has the sort of extreme lobbying and legal bribery present in the US.

      Justice has to abide to rules, otherwise it's just a powergame. And the German Railway is doing exactly that.

      Well, after having read a bit more on the issue I'm likened to agree with posters who suggested that this might actually just be the opening act of another bunch of nuclear waste transports. This makes it more of a political than a legal problem and as such might even provide a better legal base for the defense of "Radikal".

      And I didnt want to tell you what to think or not to think. It's just that I find public lamenting of a given fact (describing how to stop trains is apparently illegal in germany) rather boring. And I find it annoying on a personal level to bring arguments into a discussion that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

      There has never been any other real power in humanity than that of the individual.

      I beg to differ on a sociological level but that really doesnt belong here ;).

    15. Re:Security by obscurity.. by MrMickS · · Score: 1
      2.) The description was available on the internet for 4 to 5 years by now. It's publication on paper was not forbidden during this time.

      Ah, so, since it had been around for a little while, it's okay for the government to allow its continued publication in spite of the grave threat to national security it may pose.

      If something has previously been published then it is almost impossible to remove the information from the public domain.

      If someone wants to find and use this information, if it has been available for such a long period of time, then they will be able to find it. The only people that won't be able find it are those that like to think that everything is safe and secure.

      As Deutsche Bahn are going to ship Nuclear material the fact that such information has been published in the past and may be in the hands of people that may want to sabotage those shipments may be of interest. This smacks of trying to bolt the door after the horse has bolted so as to reassure Joe Public about the safety of such transportation.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    16. Re:Security by obscurity.. by vidarh · · Score: 2
      To 2) the goverment allowing its continued publication certainly does not pose a grave threat to national security when the information is already available to anyone who wants to via a simple web search, and when the government has not outlawed the paper version.

      As for 3 I would consider the transfer of nuclear material everyone certainly should have a right to know. A lot of people are very concerned about the safety of such transports, and especially when it is likely that possible saboteurs will have the information anyway, it should be a right for members of the public to know so that they can make the decision for themselves on whether or not to be near the area where the transport happens.

      And in fact, not that these movements are hardly easy to hide. The security around the movement of radioactive waste is so high in Germany due to the amount of protests it raises, that it is trivial to find out when and where it happens because the security precautions are highly visible.

      According to at least one CNN report, at one point the German government had to use 15.000 police officers to protect ONE shipment of radioactive waste because of the massive amount of demonstrations.

    17. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would disagree somewhat with your analysis of security by obscurity. Security by obscurity, as I understand it, is a not about keeping security measures a secret so much as it is about keeping flaws a secret. I would maintain that security through obscurity is ALWAYS a bad idea. Security through obscurity, as an operating procedure, will always breed complacancy ("If no one knows about the flaw why should we fix it?"). This is the argument that is often used to support publishing exploits before patches are available. Making information available about a security flaw gives the customer (and I beleive that all citizens are customers of their governments) the opportunity to take radical preventative action or to demand that radical preventative action be taken. Unfortunately citizens (myself included) are often to apathetic to make such demands of their governments.

      No I probably should address the issue of the FBI, CIA, NSA, [insert additional alphabet soup agencies here] keeping secrets. This is not security through obscurity, in my opinion. Secrecy in many of these cases is a goal, not a method. Letting an 'enemy' know how you're stealling his data will cause him to change his procedures but keeping that data secret does not make it more secure or tamper resistant (I'm speaking of data in hand here not data that would be collected after a leak). Additional reasons for keeping secrets in such an 'industry' would also be to prevent your 'enemy' from inplementing your methods. Keeping these methods secret is about denying information to the 'enemy' not covering up flaws in your security procedures.

      This is a bit of a rant. Read and interpret it as such.

    18. Re:Security by obscurity.. by ChaosDiscordSimple · · Score: 1
      There's also the concept of "need to know". If the concept works for world affairs and national security, i'm fairly sure it can work pretty well for plain-jane trucks.

      My point isn't that secrecy and obscurity are useless, my point is that they need to be supported with additional protection. Secrecy alone is too easy to defeat. Eventually someone has a valid "need to know", and some of those people will be corruptable.

      But if you're relying on it as your sole defense, you're foolish.
      Foolish is making assuptions about things that were not asserted.

      My apologies if I wasn't clear. That particular point wasn't intended to be directly targeted at the "secret routes of regular trucks hauling dangerous / secret / valuable things" example. My point is that secrecy and obscurity are very weak if they are the only defense employed. As a first layer of defense obscurity is a good tool for weeding out many attackers easily. This applies to computers and real life. Changing the banner sendmail emits won't even slow a dedicated attacker, but will reduce attacks from script kiddies.

      In the example of hauling valuable goods, if someone were to rely strickly on the secrecy of the route, a dedicated thief could eventually find the truck. Varying the route helps, but only increases the difficulty of finding the truck, it doesn't make it impossible. However, I suspect most of these "plain-jane" trucks are not as plain as you claim, and the shipments are further supported by a system to protect it. Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of low cost things that could be done to protect the trucks: Equip the driver's with cell phones, if anything odd happens, call it in. Equip the trucks with GPS systems that constantly call a central base with their location. Put really good locks on the doors. Add a "panic button" that sets off internal sirens (a standard car alarm would work fine) and contacts the central base. Set up a system where the driver is expected to call in its status regularly. If he misses a call, start following up on the situation.

    19. Re:Security by obscurity.. by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Or, as i like to put it:

      Security through obscurity is bad when you're dealing with a system that could theoretically be 100% secure. For example, an encryption algorithm or a web server. At least it theory, it is possible to remove absolutely all bugs from sshd and have a perfectly secure program with no exploitable holes. (spare me replies talking about stupid administrators making their own holes)

      When you're talking about physical security, it's impossible to be perfectly secure -- given a large enough army, it's possible to break into Fort Knox.

  29. umm, translator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I get an American version, I don't read Bork Bork or Nazi.

    1. Re:umm, translator? by bebroll · · Score: 1
      Shouldn't it be "English" version - just asking out of curiosity ;-)

      --
      .bbr

      fear women playing with delete functions ... next time it could be you .

  30. These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    they're a threat to innocent citizens.
    Posting instructions of how to commit crimes (sabotage in this case) should be prohibited across boarders. The poloitical background of this is that there is a very fierce anti-nuclear-power movement in germany supportet by 'left' activists.
    Think of Greenpeace activists with no mind about inocent third parties and you'll get the picture.
    I hate the "Bahns" miserable missmanagement (I use the train on a regular basis here in germany) and I shure as hell oppose to nuclear power but none the less, these people are criminals and they are a shame to peacefull resitance against "Atomkraft".
    Sueing a searchengine is of course somewhat of a twist, but I hope this can raise and clarify some issues concerning morally doubtfull internet content and at least leverage trans-european law for this. I might help to know that the german gouverment holds large shares of the "Deutsche Bahn".

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I won't get started about nuclear power stuff, but u talk about banning instructions of how to commit crimes. Crimes where? believe it or not, different countries have different laws. Alcohol is illegal in some Arab states; does that mean we should prohibit all home-brew websites? Free-speech is virtually a crime in China; so free speech activist sites should be banned. And even so, who is to say which laws are just? The Nazis made laws, ppl who broke them were severely punished; u reckon everyone should have blindly observed those laws just because they were laws?

      Sorry, u cannot (logically nor practically) censor the web.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    2. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by software_non_olet · · Score: 1

      Hoo, hoo. And don't forget the heavy railroad accident in Germany some years ago; how many people were killed at that time? about 150? Or was it more like 300?

      Reason? Dirty activists in black raincoats? No, Deutsche Bahn had not obeyed their own regulations of railroad maintenance.

      And let's remember the Greenpeace anti-atom activists, who got beaten and punished more than once during their "illegal" demonstrations in Germany - I mean the time before Chernobyl.

      It's not all that black and white. But it will become that, if we forget about tolerance and freedom of speech.

    3. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The point is, if you start saying that THIS is ok but THAT isn't, then you're immediately into a very dangerous area. Where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? Someone has to make the decision about what is "dangerous" to society, and what isn't. And ok, so there's a fairly black and white case to begin with (perhaps this one, perhaps not), and laws are passed with the best of intentions, but then - down the road, different people with different agendas then use these same laws and precedents to suppress something which may be much more shades-of-gray. The moment you have speech being censored by the government or (worse?) corporations, you have a VERY BAD situation which is GUARANTEED to be abused down the line. Much better to keep it open, and just live with the fact that in a free society, there will ALWAYS be a certain number of people saying unsavoury stuff, and you CANNOT suppress information like this. The more you try to suppress it, the more it will spread.

    4. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by arkanes · · Score: 2
      I'm about to giveyou instructions on how to commit a crime in Germany:

      Paint Swastikas in all the windows of your house.

      There you go, simple as that. If I cared more, I could even post you links where you can buy paint and stencils. This is as much "information to allow you commit a crime" as publishing information on how to destroy railroad tracks is.

    5. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Rand+Race · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Posting instructions of how to commit crimes (sabotage in this case) should be prohibited across boarders.

      By your logic the Allies in WWII were in the wrong for giving information on sabotage tactics to the French resistance. So much for supporting freedom fighters in tyranical nations.

      This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    6. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Rentar · · Score: 1
      According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were.

      But that was different! The ones who your founding fathers fought had a different oppinion, therefore they were bad!

    7. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Posting instructions of how to commit crimes (sabotage in this case) should be prohibited across boarders.

      By your logic the Allies in WWII were in the wrong for giving information on sabotage tactics to the French resistance.


      A very different situation:
      a) the information was given by government authorities (allied armed forces)
      b) the information was not ruled illegal by a court of said allied nations


      So much for supporting freedom fighters in tyranical nations.


      So you like to conclude that germany is a tyranic nation?


      This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.


      Well, you are having flaws in logic.

      As you are only playing with words and are obviously not participating in the question: "Is that particular law suit understandable, at least, right or wrong?"

      I also can turn away from logic: Supposed you have a nice house. Supposed you have made it safe with alarm signals and traps to detect burglers. Supposed I buy a square yard of real estate in front of your house.

      Supposed I place there a big sign explaining in detail where you have placed which security measure around your house and your garden. Suppose I explain in detail how to counter your defence measures and grant free entrance for a burgler.

      What would you do?
      Remove the sign (from my ground)?
      Sue me?
      Change your security equipment?

      Regards,
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by cburley · · Score: 1
      This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.

      Could you please provide a quote or a link to one showing Bush (or whoever) saying something exactly like this, so we can determine for ourselves whether you're misinterpreting what has been actually said?

      I haven't exactly paid close attention, but from what I've heard the US government saying post-09-11, they have not declared war on "all non-government-supported organized violence".

      In fact, I was under the distinct impression they had declared war on all terrorism of global reach -- that is, all murdering of civilians, in order to terrorize a population into accommodating political goals, carried out across national borders -- and that they, in fact, will specifically target governments that fund, aid, or harbor terrorists of this sort.

      Assuming I've heard the "party line" correctly, how it gets twisted into a war on "all non-government-supported organized violence" is a mystery. So presumably you have actual quotes, rather than anecdotal mumblings, to back up your claims?

      (No, I'm not trying to "support Bush". How Arafat and the PLO manage to escape his earlier declaration of war on terrorists with global reach has been left entirely unexplained, at least to me, for just one example. I really am interested in actual evidence that his widely-supported "war on terror" is a fraud, beyond just evidence of political posturing to try to preserve an internation coalition including Arab states.)

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    9. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by ckuhtz · · Score: 1
      This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.

      Wrong. *thwack*

      Didn't you pay attention when they said that americans cannot be terrorists? *thwack* People who blow up abortion clinics aren't terrorists. etc etc. *thwack*

      The definition of terrorism is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it is so ridiculous to come up with the term 'war on terrorism' in the first place. *thwack* Oh, and the abitrary scope of justice which is so handy in this matter.

      And aliens aren't afforded the same rights as citizens anywhere. *thwack* Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. *thwack*

      Sounds logical, right? *twitchtwitch*

      Oh well. ;)

      --

      Poof.
    10. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Do you really believe that something becomes moral just because a government does it?

      That's what your argument sums up to. Granted, we are talking about laws here, but we are also talking about what the laws should be. Government has no special magic wand that make heinous crimes moral if they do it. Legal, perhaps. But only if the laws are corrupt. (Granted, they usually are. People in power usually want to be able to do whatever they feel like, so they write the laws to justify it.)

      As far as I have been able to determine, every government that is strong enough oppresses in an immoral way those who are weaker. The US checks - and - balances system was supposed to prevent that, but the "Alien and Sedition" acts were passed during the first couple of decades of it's existence, and the purpose of those acts was to step harshly upon the elected peoples political opponents. What really kept the US a reasonably open government was 1) tension between the Feds and the States (the Feds seem to have won that one so thoroughly that it is a dead issue) and the geographical spread that kept a tightly organized system from exerting much control. Computers, electronics, and mass-media have sort of killed that issue. This is the basic reason that the US has been drifting more and more toward a country run by an "elite" (i.e., the most sneaky thugs around).

      What to do about it? How to preserve things? Create useful systems that do not have centralized control. Decentralized systems work against the tendency for centralized control. The internet could be such a system, but the centrallized name servers are a point of weakness. If you are designing or implementing a new system consider the advantages of a self-healing round-robin set-up. Or a call and response. Polling has it's problems, but there might be ways to make it work if it were not centrallized. P2P systems can lead the way here, but we have already seen that there is a dangerous inclination towards centralization. And we have seen that it creates a single point of failure.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by tschild · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the heavy railroad accident in Germany some years ago; how many people were killed at that time? about 150? Or was it more like 300?

      101 killed, actually (it was on 1998-06-03 at Eschede). About as much as were killed in the next five days on Germany's roads with much less attention by the media.

    12. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

    13. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In fact, I was under the distinct impression they had declared war on all terrorism of global reach -- that is, all murdering of civilians, in order to terrorize a population into accommodating political goals, carried out across national borders -- and that they, in fact, will specifically target governments that fund, aid, or harbor terrorists of this sort.


      I seem to recall a large western nation bombing Afganistan in order to convince the ruling party there to extradite a criminal....

    14. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.

      The founding father's were terrorists. There's no way to include, say, the people at the WTO protests or the environmentalists who destroy environmentally-harmful property as terrorists and exclude the founding fathers. The fact is anyone who yells out for major change in the government (even in non-violent ways) is quite literally fighting against the government. The difference between being a threat to the government and being a "reformer" of the government is a numbers game - if you get a majority of government representatives to agree with you, then it's considered democratic reform. If you can get a few to agree with you, you're fine. If none of them agree with you and many actively disdain you, you can be a terrorist. This, despite how rare it is that your representatives represent the people's interest compared with businesses' interests. I realize now that most reform I want (patent reform, copyright reform, more environmental measures) are considered real near-tangible threats to major forces in America. Because most of my causes are things to which most people are ill-informed and because I have little money I realize that protest is the best weapon in my trade. Considering how dear the corporations are to the government and how widespread Bush' definition and propaganda of terrorism, simple active protest of software patents - such as by releasing a GPL program implementing some of the more infamous patents, or having and advertising a "one-click week" where people put up "one click" ordering functionality for the week - could easily being construed as being a terrorist act. I'm threatening certain corporations immediate revenues, I'm going to break the law and I'm going to make things better - you can believe the government will see me as a threat.

    15. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "In fact, I was under the distinct impression they had declared war on all terrorism of global reach -- that is, all murdering of civilians, in order to terrorize a population into accommodating political goals, carried out across national borders -- and that they, in fact, will specifically target governments that fund, aid, or harbor terrorists of this sort."

      Re-read this sentence and see for yourself if the US govt qualifies as a terrorist regime. Before you answer that question though you may want to read up on Pinochet, Idi Amin, Vietnam, El salvador, guatemala, panama etc.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    16. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Rand+Race · · Score: 2

      Did the comment I was replying to mention any specific situation? No? Thank you.

      So you like to conclude that germany is a tyranic nation?

      Uh, no, I concluded that German occupied Vichy France was a tyrannical nation.

      As you are only playing with words and are obviously not participating in the question: "Is that particular law suit understandable, at least, right or wrong?"

      Look at the top of your post I am responding to. There is the statement in question. It is a general statement, not a specific one. As for your specific question, the law suit is understandable under German law and is wrong for the reasons I outlined in the general case. Such a ruling could be used to stifle legitimate dissent if the nation were to resubside into fascism or something equally repressive.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    17. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by cburley · · Score: 1
      Re-read this sentence and see for yourself if the US govt qualifies as a terrorist regime.

      Why bother? I was referring to the distinctions between how Bush (and, say, 80+% of Americans) define the war and how others (perhaps wilfully) distort that definition when trying to attack it.

      Having gone around with you before on this, I'm 0% interested in the "moral status" of the USA. As an American citizen, I am now, when it comes to my relationship to the US federal government, interested only in my personal safety, freedom, and that of my fellow citizens.

      I know you hate America. We all know you hate America. I know you are doing everything you can to motivate those who actually do intend to murder innocent Americans (a phrase I concede you won't admit applies to anyone, even two-year-olds on airplanes) to carry out their schemes, murder even more, etc. We all know that now.

      And I also suspect you do this primarily because you hold America 100% guilty for the defeat of global communism, a system that murdered tens of millions in the 20th century alone, and which the USA fought, in fits and starts, using all sorts of tactics, including supporting efforts involving the things you list -- Pinochet, Idi Amin, Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama (though I'm not sure about that last one).

      So, I no longer take you seriously as a communicator of moral uprightness, but rather as a hopeful leader of mass-murder against myself, my family, and my fellow citizens.

      Further, I recognize that the left-wing socialist/communist establishment fully embraces Arab-Muslim acts of mass murder as politically legitimate because it believes those acts can be connected to left-wing canards like "poverty", "injustice", "shame", the exact problems the left loves to trump up in order to extort funding, freedom, and military power from the West, especially the USA. (Personally, I agree with the sentiment that labels as "slander" statements that point to poverty as a root cause of terrorism or violence generally. I find poor people no more prone to violence than the wealthy, but the left disagrees when it finds such disagreement convenient.)

      So it treats what amounts to right-wing fanatics as brothers-in-arms, mainly as a political ploy to convince the USA that if only it'd adopt the "enlightened" sort of leadership that involves less freedom, higher taxation, international redistribution of wealth, and further restrictions on business (if it's even allowed to exist at all), the problems of terrorism would evaporate -- which, of course, they would not, if history is any guide (since it's historically proven that such systems of government fail in the most crucial test: the ability to locate and promote qualified leaders of moral character).

      That's why it's primarily left-wing publications that have trouble using the phrase "terrorist" today, instead equating it with "freedom fighter" -- suggesting that, deep down inside, they know that the so-called "freedom fighters" of the leftist revolutions of the past 100+ years were all, in fact, just terrorists. (Meanwhile, the right-wing publications with which I'm familiar have little trouble declaring people like Timothy McVeigh "terrorists", even though they were acting out in line with right-wing causes like opposing gun control.)

      Meanwhile, last I was aware, the USA was no longer involved in any of those things you list. Heck, last I checked, neither were Germany nor Japan involved in murdering innocent civilians as they were in WWII -- and, surprise surprise, Bush is not targeting them, either. (I guess you really resent the US focusing exclusively on present threats rather than trying to bring about some sort of cosmic justice by annihilating itself and all its citizens?)

      And until I see you invoke the reality of what the Soviet Union did, Cuba does, China does, on a regular basis in this forum and in these sorts of discussions, especially in the context of any unfortunate activity in which the US military gets involved, rather than constantly (as it seems to me) spewing hatred towards the USA -- as if the world needs more of that presently -- I won't change my opinion of you.

      It's really sad, and at the same time kinda funny, that someone like you, pretending to be a moral compass for the US, conducts his campaign by spreading so much hatred and venom towards every single citizen, based on any act carried out in the name of, or even remotely funded or even not actively discouraged (e.g. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait) by, the US, even acts carried out decades before those, whom you hold as morally responsible for them, were born, as you did in this message.

      So, since the USA can and will never, no matter what it does (except possibly by becoming a totalitarian communist dictatorship, run by the "enlightened idealists" who run, say, Cuba), meet your standard of morality and thus no longer be validly called a "terrorist regime", and since you're just one voice among many who will, similarly, never acknowledge the US's "moral superiority" in any matter, especially a matter involving actions it takes to defend itself against attack, I've completely given up my interest in the US carrying out our collective defense on the basis of any morality whatsoever.

      Instead, all I care about is effectiveness. As long as there are those who declare themselves (by word or deed) enemies of the USA, the federal government had better deal with them, and do that effectively.

      I'm not insisting that it do so. Oh, no -- I'm also a Christian, and therefore don't have a desire to commit violence, either directly or by proxy (e.g. by government) -- which is the main reason why I don't cotton to left-wing politics (since it's full of violence by proxy -- against the wealthy, against gun owners, against yet-to-be-born children, against white European males, and so on -- in the form of threat and the spreading of mass hatred and resentment, if not action), and why I have little interest in some strains of right-wing politics as well.

      All I ask is, if the government won't do its primary duty and defend me and my fellow citizens, it dissolve itself entirely, leaving all of us free to defend ourselves, conduct our lives, earn and spend our money, plan for our retirement, teach our children, take care of our elderly, contribute to local charitities, and so on, as we each see fit.

      In the meantime, people like you have convinced me to not even care, from the point of view of my duties of citizenship (e.g. voting), whether the US is intentionally bombing innocent civilians elsewhere in the world, except insofar as it is calculated as an effective means of defense. After all, people like you refuse to grant me or other Americans even the slightest whiff of good moral intentions, instead castigating us as equally evil to any modern-day terrorist planning to blow up a pediatrics ward. So there is no basis on which I can possibly encourage the US government to conduct itself "more morally". Why should I bother encouraging moral behavior on the premise that it'd earn more friends for the USA, when what the world seems to really respect is the aggressive use of force? After all, the most-respected international organization is the United Nations, and, in that body, the USA gets exactly as many votes as a mass-murdering, politically repressive nation like China gets. So much for international respect for any semblance of morality.

      And, since there's plenty of evidence that attempts at morality led to 2001-09-11 (e.g. the restrictions on the sorts of local contacts the CIA may have, the refusal to engage in anything remotely like "racial profiling"), from the defense-of-my-country point of view, I see no practical reason to encourage the US government to behave morally. According to your claimed standards, the US can never become a more moral nation, and to the degree it tries, even I can see that it'll become far less able to defend itself against enemies that already exist and have already taken action against it.

      So, thanks for your constant interjections in these and other discussions -- you've really clarified and simplified my outlook, and probably that of many others.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    18. Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      I think you made my point very well! Thank you.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  31. The whole story. by AftanGustur · · Score: 5, Insightful


    It actually is a much longer story (and more interesting), you can read it HERE

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:The whole story. by Rogerborg · · Score: 3

      Nice link, thanks. This is pretty cynical stuff:

      • In 1996 and 1997 the Radikal-case caused a lot of public upheaval, when German providers were summoned to make this specific homepage unavailable to their subscribers. The blocking was lifted twice, when it became clear how ineffective it was. Neither the Dutch nor German authorities have ever ordered XS4ALL to remove the material. On top of that, the paper publication was never forbidden in the Netherlands.

      This is a nasty symptom of a modern disease. It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong, as long as you have enough money to just keep bringing lawsuits until you've exhausted the ability of your targets to defend themselves. I for one hope that Deutsche Bahn are severely bitchslapped over bringing this back to court yet again.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:The whole story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And actually, the link you provided contains the text to be censored, unlike the google cache of the xs4all.nl page which is useless. Thanks a lot, although I'm not planning to sabotage the DB I found the read very interesting. :)

    3. Re:The whole story. by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      Why, oh why, haven't these censors realized that all they do in the end is create immense amounts of curiosity and expose huge numbers of people to the banned content?

      What they're doing is about as counterproductive as it gets.

      Now, understand that I'm sympathetic to their goals - few people want to see terrorist attacks on trains - but this isn't the right way to achieve them.

      The Church of Scientology, whose goals I am empathetically unsympathetic to, does the exact same thing, and to the same effect: Tremendous interest among the public to see the "forbidden" materials, and enormous ridicule once they are revealed.

      We're a long way on this road for the railroad ...

      D

      PS Gotta admire that Dutch ISP. They got guts, both for dealing with this and standing up for Scientology. From what I can see, the only reason the material is now down is that the railroad got an injunction.

    4. Re:The whole story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XS4ALL has historically been an amazing source of information. During the Yugoslavian conflict, they were the only ones to keep the ISP connections up until they were physically cut.

  32. One site works.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is a mirror..it was listed in one of the docs.. http://www.connix.com/~harry/radikal/index.htm

  33. humor on hogans heroes by koekepeer · · Score: 1

    stereotyping germans as people who look away when evil is done is insulting, whether you encapsulate it into a reference to Hogans Heroes or not.

    1. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Matrim9 · · Score: 1

      Gee, maybe if they HADN'T looked away, we couldn't do that, now could we?

    2. Re:humor on hogans heroes by swb · · Score: 2

      stereotyping germans as people who look away when evil is done is insulting, whether you encapsulate it into a reference to Hogans Heroes or not.

      There is no reference to the holocaust in Hogan's Heros -- the humour is entirely related to the bumbling of the camp guards and commander. Most of the German civilians referenced in the show are either outright members of the resistance or sympathetic and complicit in the resistance.

      There is no reference to Nazi ideology, and even American racism never plays a part -- the "electrical engineer" of the show is a black who is well treated by both his peers and the guards.

      Even the Gestapo is misrepresented. Major Hochstedter is frequently portrayed performing Gestapo duties in a pre-war Waffen SS dress uniform. The Waffen SS dress uniform was changed from black to grey at the start of the war. It's also unlikely that the Gestapo performed their duties in Waffen SS uniforms, even if they were Waffen SS members. I'd call it technically correct in that its likely that Gestapo officers were SS members as the SS controlled all state security apparatus and would have put their men in the officer ranks, but...wrong uniform for the job, and wrong uniform style for the period.

    3. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Teethgrinder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      stereotyping germans as people who look away when evil is done is insulting

      But nevertheless appropriate as far as stereotypes go.

      Of course, being as it is this stereotype holds true for pretty much all the people in the world. We are a bunch of egoistic cowards after all.

    4. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. and the italians did their looking away.
      The French followed napolean
      The English had their colonies (that you can trace to many problems, even today)
      The Swiss did the banking for all of it.

      And the Soviet Union could have been dismantled much earlier if people had stood up for themselves.

      NOBODY IS WITHOUT FAULT
      WE COULD ALL END MANY PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD, IF PEOPLE JUST DECIDED THEY WANTED TO

      ENOUGH OF THIS THREAD

    5. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... but... it's just so much fun.

    6. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah.. and the italians did their looking away.
      The French followed napolean
      The English had their colonies (that you can trace to many problems, even today)
      The Swiss did the banking for all of it.

      And the Soviet Union could have been dismantled much earlier if people had stood up for themselves.
      ...but the Germans looked away
    7. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes? Insulting?

      Then tell me why yesterday night there was no coverage in the "Tagethemen" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

      Cowardly looking away.

      It is insulting to be a german and witness this sort of spineless behavior.

    8. Re:humor on hogans heroes by jgerman · · Score: 1
      True, there's a reason for stereotypes, they don't come from nowhere. While applying a sterotype to a single person is completely without merit, applying on to a sufficiently large group is. Most sterotypes are insulting, mainly because the truth hurts.


      On the other hand I'm sure that there are many sterotypes that exists because the perceptions of one group are used to judge another.


      All in all I'd say that sterotypes are a good thing, opposed to how they're generally seen. Insulting or not, there's some truth to them, either because they are strictly true, or that's how certain groups see the stereotyped group. An it gives individual members of that group to look at themselves and ask if it's true, and change if they feel it's bad, or be glad because it's good.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    9. Re:humor on hogans heroes by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 2

      No! Next you'll tell me that the Germans didn't speak English all the time, even when talking amongst themselves.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    10. Re:humor on hogans heroes by koekepeer · · Score: 1

      everyone is misreading my post. i just wanted to say that i think it is inappropriate that people refer to "wir haben es nie gewusst" when the DB sues some dutch company in 2002. whether you refer to it with a "humorous" quote to Hogans Heroes or not.

      my reply had *nothing* to say about hogans heroes.

      when i said over 50 years i meant the 2nd world war.

      anyways, this whole thing is way OT, and i must say i was surprised by the amount of reactions to it when i came home after work just now. as far as i'm concerned this is end of discussion.

    11. Re:humor on hogans heroes by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      stereotyping germans as people who look away when evil is done is insulting, whether you encapsulate it into a reference to Hogans Heroes or not.

      If Hogan's Heroes is so nasty, then explain why it's dubbed into German and broadcast on German TV.

      (I'm not joking...I saw it maybe 3 or 4 years ago. My parents and I (they were stationed @ Ramstein; I was visiting) were in Rothenburg (sp?) and it was on one evening...we were out of range for AFN. (Besides, PAL TVs don't pick up NTSC signals too well and AFN carries mostly sports anyway...a fair number of GIs get minidishes, have someone in England send an access card, and watch Sky.))

      You do have to wonder a bit about what the Germans might find funny about it, but I guess enough of them do to make it worth carrying.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    12. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those others didn't?

      Bah!

      How many Isralies and Palasinians are "looking the other way" right now?

      "A curse upon both your houses"
      -W. Shakespeare

    13. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Germans of today do not identify themselves with Nazi-Germany. Particularily younger Germans tend to have the opinion that they are no more guilty and have no more "duty to remember" than people of any other country. I was born over thirty years after the war - even my parents were born after the war.
      What many Germans find certainly more insulting than comedy like "Hogan's Heroes" are some of the things Netanjahu told about them the last weeks. (Info: Netanjahu criticized Germans for being offensive "like 50 years ago" because some German politicians stood on the side of those who critizized Israels actions against Arafat)

    14. Re:humor on hogans heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now some german comment(s)....

      Kranke Gesellschaften brauchen Sündenböcke. - Alvin Tofler

      Ich glaube nicht an Kollektivschuld. Die Schuldigen sind schuldig, aber die Kinder der Schuldigen sind Kinder. - Elie Wiesel (*1928)

      Wer gewinnt, genieße,
      wer verliert, der büße. - Deutsches Sprichwort

      Ich bin sicherlich nicht rassistisch, oder ähnliches, doch Kollektivschuld gibts es nicht... Ich denke auch, dass es keine Erbschuld gibt... Bin ich wirklich, im Ernst, daran Schuld das vor 50 Jahren ein verdammtes Arschloch an die Macht kam? Bin ich schuld das nicht alle was dagegen taten? (Es gab genug Widerständler: "Die Weiße Rose"... "Edelweißpiraten"... dann alle Soldaten die den Befehl verweigerten) Haben es diese Menschen verdient, so beschimpft... so gehetzt zu werden?? Viele schauten weg... doch wie lange wollt ihr die Schuld vererben?? 100 Jahre? 1000 Jahre... all die Zeit bis zum 3rd World War? (Der wohl nicht mehr lang sein wird)... desweiteren haben nicht nur deutsche FEHLER(!) im 2. WK gemacht... das mindert nicht die Schuld... doch kann man nicht allein den schwarzen Peter den deutschen zu schieben, oder? Ich denke da an 2 A-Bomben... an uneingeschränkten U-Boot-Krieg (der deutschen)... an Belagernungen...

      ich hoffe ihr versteht mich - ~royo~

  34. goverment taking over freedom of speech. by atif_ghaffar · · Score: 0

    I thought that could only happen in the USA.

  35. You could argue that... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    once someone uses that info to steal a flask of nuclear material and lets it off in Los Angeles (hey might as well do it somewhere useful :-), some americans might argue less forcefully for free speech... I am unsure on this myself though.

    However this is the country where you can get denied the vote (a few years ago) or locked up just depending on your ancestry (afghan is not a good one to have at the moment) so I'm not sure the constitution is always followed 100%. Hey, according to the constitution you have not been at war since Korea (?), but there are a lot of dead people who might disagree (well, if they weren't dead of course!)

    Of course, if the govt. of a country was sneaky, they could publish bomb-making manuals themselves, with a few slight minor mistakes in them ;-)

    1. Re:You could argue that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you can get denied the vote (a few years ago) "

      As opposed to millions being slaughtered in Europe "just a few years ago" ?
      Sure I will take the denying the vote anytime.

      "locked up just depending on your ancestry (afghan is not a good one to have at the moment) "

      What the fuck are you talking about ?
      I know couple of Afghans ( this is related to my love of Pakistani and Indian food) who are doing very well here in US.

    2. Re:You could argue that... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      True, the 1930s in europe were worse than the 1960s in the US. My afghan comment was triggered by news reports about hundreds of people being secretly held on unspecified or immigration charges; nowhere near the scale of internment of japanese during WW2.

    3. Re:You could argue that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > once someone uses that info to steal a flask of nuclear material and lets it off in Los Angeles (hey might as well do it somewhere useful :-), some americans might argue less forcefully for free speech... I am unsure on this myself though.

      Considering that the British government just published the detailed construction plans for their first atomic bomb (sure, it's for a 40 year old design, but still..), we may yet have that opportunity.

  36. I hate when I talk to my computer... by rbeattie · · Score: 1


    I'm reading the article and I get to the part where the German says "... and we don't want that."

    And I say out loud, "Yeah, well fuck you."

    My wife, who was sitting next to me, got a little upset. Gotta stop talking to my computer...

    -Russ

    --
    Me
  37. They need to fire their admin by JPriest · · Score: 2

    If they had sensitive documents that were harmful to the company what were they doing on a public web server with read permissions and no access restrictions in the first place? _I_ think the company should be liable to pay legal charges and damages to Google.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:They need to fire their admin by hettb · · Score: 0
      >If they had sensitive documents that were harmful to the company what were they doing on a public web server with read permissions and no access restrictions in the first place? _I_ think the company should be liable to pay legal charges and damages to Google.

      Hello? From the article:

      The German national railway operator will file suit Wednesday against Google because the company's search engine provides links to a Web site that offers instructions on how to sabotage railway systems, Deutsche Bahn said Tuesday. Lawsuits against Yahoo and AltaVista also are being prepared.

      Deutsche Bahn recently sent letters to all three U.S. search engine operators asking them to remove the hyperlinks to the online copies of two articles from the German-language left-wing extremist publication, Radikal, which has been outlawed in Germany. The articles detail how to cut power on parts of the railway system.

      These arent't the Bundesbahn's pages, and they never hosted them. Next time, read the article before posting and don't make a fool of yourself.

    2. Re:They need to fire their admin by hij · · Score: 1
      Read the article. The pages are hosted by a group hostile to the German Government. Note one interesting quote from the article on InfoWorld:

      We always have trouble with people sabotaging our system and people were following these instructions,

      Hmmm. They might want to try reading the instructions and then figure out what people are doing! If I were a paying customer on the train I would rather their efforts go in making the train safe rather than trying to control documents already on the internet on how to stop the train. Then again, I'm an idealist.

      --
      Believe nothing -- Buddha
  38. What about the right for safe passage on rail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer that to being allowed to post instructions on terrorims/sabotage on the Internet.

    1. Re:What about the right for safe passage on rail? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2
      Take a look at the instructions. From what I can understand (from a dodgy translation via Google), the instructions actually shut down sections of rail rather than sabotage passanger safety. Though messing with a system could have other consequences the author of the article are not aware of.


      Having said that - if you're so concerned about safe passage, look in to the issue. Maybe you're not as safe as you think you are.

  39. Bush will jump on the bandwagon by SmoothOperator · · Score: 1

    I hate to stir up a hornet's nest here, but with all the anit-terrorist paranoia around the world, this will have the American government screaming "terrorism" and we'll see Uncle Sam's B-52s, and not the Panzer Division, heading in the direction of Google's offices, not the mention Radikal's offices. But seriously, freedom of speech might get a kick in the butt if the American anti-terrorist campaign gets on the side of the German railway, and teams up against Google.

    --

    Veni, vidi, vici.

    1. Re:Bush will jump on the bandwagon by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. They're not even doing anything about the IRA, why would they care about a whiny little railway company?

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  40. First Hug A Root Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, hug a root today.

  41. next.... by room101 · · Score: 2

    next on the list is Slashdot, and anyone else that has run this story, link to a story that links to the story about....

    --
    room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
    (they always break you eventually)
  42. Re:that is *so* funny by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
    But that couldn't happen again.
    We taught them a lesson in 1918
    And they've hardly bothered us since then.

    -- Tom Lehrer, MLF Lullaby

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  43. useless comments. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How useless those comments about "fascists, ss, nazis, censoring, no free speech, etc., etc.". Yawn. How about you try to say something useful.

    Anyone remembering the discussions about how to exploit security holes help terrorists and should be stopped? How about someone publishes a HOWTO for creating Anthrax? Then of course everybody shouts how that has to be stopped and can't be allowed. But if some radicals publish papers about how to sabotage train tracks and by doing this possibly kill people that is ok?

    Comparing the freedom of Germany/Europe to USA I am quite happy to have just a little less braindead laws crippling freedom of speech like the DMCA.

    </rant>

  44. In the US by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    you have the right to describe how to kill someone (free speech) and the right to possess the means to do so (bear arms).

    unfortunately you don't have the right to live, since that was just in the preamble :-)

    The german (and european) courts have to balance these, which is the (intractable) root cause of the problems (and gives policitians and judges lots of wriggle room).

  45. irony of free speech by Lurking+Grue · · Score: 1
    "There is no chance to sue them in the U.S. You are really allowed to put anything on the Internet there," Schreyer said.

    Yeah, anything except links to instructions on how to unlock a copy-protected DVD that you've purchased for viewing on your home computer.

  46. Those pesky Americans! by jht · · Score: 2
    Deutsche Bahn will file suit in Germany, where all three search engine companies have subsidiaries, because it feels it would not stand a chance in a U.S. court because of freedom of speech allowed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    "There is no chance to sue them in the U.S. You are really allowed to put anything on the Internet there," Schreyer said.


    Subtext: Geez. If only those darned Americans would restrict speech even further and cooperate with the rest of the world, we wouldn't have to sue them here in Germany...

    But they only try to ban web pages about sex and how to decrypt DVDs. Why don't they get with the program and ban more stuff!

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
  47. Host Name Change by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In other news, www.xs4all.nl will change to www.xs4allexceptcertainanarchistpublications.nl to represent recent events.

    Would it not be a better idea for Deutsche Bahn to use their excess cash to:

    • Secure Their Systems
    • Find Better Ways to Transport Radioactive Waste

    As the already-present mirrors show, attempting to censor people's right to freedom of speech on the Internet is a futile exercise.

    1. Re:Host Name Change by hettb · · Score: 0
      As the already-present mirrors show, attempting to censor people's right to freedom of speech on the Internet is a futile exercise.

      Eh? Since when is there such a right? If there is such a right, who gave it to us? ICANN?

    2. Re:Host Name Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      GOD.

      Or other deity of your choice.

    3. Re:Host Name Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we decided to give it to ourselves...

    4. Re:Host Name Change by tschild · · Score: 1

      Would it not be a better idea for Deutsche Bahn to use their excess cash to:

      • Secure Their Systems
      • Find Better Ways to Transport Radioactive Waste

      Secure their system how? You cannot prevent physical access to about 44,000 kilometers (27,000 miles) of track. There is also no way around the requirement for railway safety equipment to fail to the safe side, i.e. to stop trains when sabotaged.

      Find better ways to transport radioactive waste how? First of all, DB probably would be thankful if the government did not require using the safest way (i.e. by rail, where there is a rail line) to transport radioactive waste. As they are not free to decline the contract they are surely not being paid enough to make all the disruption worth their while.

      Then, obviously, there is also the thought, often voiced in Germany by well meaning people: Why don't they simply address the grievances which make people commit politically motivated violence and sabotage?
      In my opinion that cannot be done. If everything that the pamphlet concerned refers to as objectionable activities of German Rail (not only radioactive waste transport, but also conveying conscripts to army barracks, armaments transports and the transport of rejected asylum seekers back over the border) were to be abolished, these people could be relied on to think of other reasons. After all transporting people to work and to their vacations also serves The System. And it is very easy, if you put your mind to it, to be outraged by the transport of any given kind of material by rail.

    5. Re:Host Name Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS?

    6. Re:Host Name Change by demonbug · · Score: 1
      Would it not be a better idea for Deutsche Bahn to use their excess cash to:

      Secure Their Systems
      Find Better Ways to Transport Radioactive Waste


      What better way to transport nuclear waste? Rail travel is the safest form of transportation in the world (yes, this includes walking). Maybe instead you should suggest that dumbasses like those that posted this sabotage crap on a web site should find something useful to do rather than teach people to destroy public or private property. Especially property like this, which is beneficial to everyone, and could possibly cause a dangerous situation. What exactly does slowing down the transport of these dangerous materials accomplish? Nothing, except increasing the likelihood of an accident, terrorist act, etc.

  48. The US does not have a monopoly on stupidity by mttlg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Even if the pages no longer exist on XS4ALL sites, we want the search engines to remove the link because it still advertises a handbook for destruction. People will start looking for it elsewhere and we don't want that,"

    Right, some links on a few search engines are better advertising than numerous news articles describing exactly what the blocked pages contain...

    "There is no chance to sue them in the U.S. You are really allowed to put anything on the Internet there,"

    Yeah, instructions on hacking railway systems are ok, but you'd better not post instructions describing how to open legally purchased documents "protected" by some form of "encryption."

  49. DB hasn't won the case yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dutch court will make the final ruling at 25 april.
    In the meantime XS4ALL has been ordered to block the radical pages.
    So DB hasn't won yet...

  50. The really stupid thing about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that their actions will cause the articles in question to be deseminated more widely.

    They are giving the radikal group free advertising.

    The other problem with the whole issue is that these idiots are trying to create security through obscurity after the knowledge has already been made freely available for several years.

    Security through obscurity doesn't work in the best of situations, but the attempt when the info isn't obscure anyway is just idiotic.

    What they should actually DO is make the article irrelevent. FIX the problem so that the trains CAN'T be disrupted by the described methods.

  51. Germany wants to kill the web by rickymoz · · Score: 1

    I already noticed that for a while. German lawyers (especially one) use to sue companies for displaying a link to another site.

    And now I read the German government blocks a whole ISP because it didn't like just one page hosted there.

    And now a company sues a search engine, because there are links (and a cache) to some information they don't like.

    Where do they all think they are????

    I'm going to move right away to Germany and I'll sue all companies displaying: "This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer". I bet I'm gonna make a bunch of Euros like this ... ;-)

  52. that's what people said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before they invaded Poland. Great, the huns are gonna invade a week before I go to Amsterdam on vacation. Of all the lousy luck.

    1. Re:that's what people said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They invaded Poland in WW2 but they were called the huns in WWI. You f**ked up!!!!!!!

      Still fairly humorous though.

  53. The germans will never have their way. by TheFrench · · Score: 1

    We surrender!

  54. A couple of facts worth pointing out by Kemal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. The concerned Radikal publication is from 1996/1997; Its banning/blackage in The Netherlands was unsuccessful then. Why a lawsuit now? Is it because Deutsche Bahn is (again) planning to transport nuclear waste material soon?

    2. The Dutch court has made a 'tussenvonnis' (mid-sentence?). XS4ALL has said to await the final judgement.

  55. ROFLMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hehe

  56. Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting the information is the criminal act here. By caching it for others to read they are repeating the offence. Or so the logic goes.

  57. Sue over link to someone elses content? by Ibag · · Score: 1

    I can understand that DB would want xs4all.com to remove the pages because they tell how to damage DB property. Now, whether xs4all.com should have had to remove the pages seems a bit iffy to me, but let us assume for the sake of argument that there is certain information that should not be posted to the web.

    I can then understnad the desire to have google (or anybody else who has caches of web pages) remove the cache from the web, since if the content shouldn't be available (again, iffy), then google shouldn't provide it either.

    However, they want google (and yahoo) to remove links to the site. It seems dubious to me that you should be able to force someone to remove a link to somebody elses site. If they didn't want google linking to their own site, it wouldn't bother me. However, I can't condone demanding that a third party remove lniks to something I just don't like.

    What if Amazon.com demanded that google remove all links to Barnesandnoble.com...

  58. Radical Left not equal Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 60's the Radical Left was protesting their 'lack' of free speech in their famous "Free Speech" movement. Now that they have made their "long march" through the colligate institutions and have emerged as college deans, presidents, tenured faculty, etc., they refuse to grant similar rights to view points differing from theirs. The college campus of today is a LOT LESS FREE than it was 40 years ago, thanks to the "Radikal Left".

  59. Access is Forbidden by gbrandt · · Score: 1

    Should be 'access ist verboten'

    Gregor

    1. Re:Access is Forbidden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zugriff (wurde) verweigert. :)

  60. From someone intimately involved.. by Sapphon · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone who works for a major German telecommunications company, I was directly involved in this, in that my office was responsible for giving the DB a 'heads up' about the site (whether or not we found it I'm not sure).
    I was asked to take a look at the portion of the site relating to my companies products (which was a guide on how to sabotage them to disrupt train services), and essentially the most elegant intructions given were "Pry the cover off, bash the insides to pieces with a rock, and/or fill it up with dirt/glue/etc".

    This was only a few weeks ago too, and this is the first I've heard of any action the DB has taken, but I am quite impressed at the speed at which this has progressed.

    (Details have been left vague to give me some semblance of anonyminity, protect my job, etc)

    --
    Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    1. Re:From someone intimately involved.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> but I am quite impressed at the speed at which this has progressed.

      Yeah, well, if you ate Ex-Lax like a 10-year-old eats chocolate bars, the way DB's lawyers apparently do, you'd understand. They were, and are, full of shit, and the proof is forthcoming, apparently.

      Anyone know if Google can counter-sue for treble damages plus legal fees (in Germany or the Netherlands or wherever in Europe DB decides to defacate)?

    2. Re:From someone intimately involved.. by UnifiedTechs · · Score: 2
      Is this how they are doing it? I'll have you know I have filed a patent for:

      "method of sabotaging a train by means of Prying the cover off, bash the insides to pieces with a rock, and/or fill it up with dirt/glue/etc"

      . Under this patent I will be suing all the sabotager's. If you have sabotaged a train by this method please send me an e-mail so I may sue you.

    3. Re:From someone intimately involved.. by frost22 · · Score: 2

      *lol*

      Telematik or not ?

      Ahh, whatever. While heads-upping our beloved friends/customers/sleeping-former-public-servants could you please also heads-up their PR department about causing a substantial blunder and promoting Radikal to audiences that never heard of it before ?

      Since the Marquardt Deciscion (German MP A. Marquardt was aquitted of aiding and abetting for linking to Radikal) about anybody knew about that particular article anyway, since it was "Exhibit A" in the prosecution's (failed) case. Now their spectacular blunder made sure this article is conserved and available from about every well run free speech archive, and there are Radikal mirrors springing up left and right.

      Oh, and that Google shit - my God, this is a PR minefield if there ever was one. Given that the original article at XS4ALL is gone anyway, there is about zero chance that link and cache still exist the day this case reaches a regular court of law. This whole thing is just a spectacular waste of everyone's time.
      OTOH, since Google is the most admired an popular search engine around, you're going to win popularity contests with internet users real soon now.

      Oh, you are so good...

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    4. Re:From someone intimately involved.. by frost22 · · Score: 2

      Anyone know if Google can counter-sue for treble damages plus legal fees (in Germany or the Netherlands or wherever in Europe DB decides to defacate)?

      Not sure what "treble damage" is, but fees are clear: In German civil courts, the looser automatically pays both parties' fees.
      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    5. Re:From someone intimately involved.. by tpv · · Score: 1
      the most elegant intructions given were "Pry the cover off, bash the insides to pieces with a rock, and/or fill it up with dirt/glue/etc".

      Greate, not slashdot will now be receiving a letter of demand. You can't have that sort of information publically available.

      However, if that's the level of sophistication that radikal is publishing, don't you think that people will work it out anyway?
      Is blocking this webpage actually going to stop people who are determined to do this?

      I guess it stops kiddies who would do it as a prank now that they know how, but stopping prostestors? If you're willing to chain yourself to a fence somewhere, then you're probably going to be willing to bash at a signal box, whether a web-page told you to or not.

      --
      Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
    6. Re:From someone intimately involved.. by Sapphon · · Score: 1

      However, most people would not have the faintest idea that the little yellow boxes on the side of railway tracks are important enough to be able to majorly disrupt train scheduels. By destroying these boxes (axle counters, they determine whether a section of track is occupied or not), the trains are forced to proceed at a speed allowing visual determination of track occupancy.

      All this from a little yellow box - did you know about that before?

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    7. Re:From someone intimately involved.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tracks here in the states (at least in my area) switch themselves according to a pre-planned schedule. Any train engineer who wants to use them at an unplanned time has to call ahead and have someone switch the track. Of course, he also has to confirm a train isn't coming his way on the track!

      Whether on-site trackmen have been replaced by cameras is something I don't know. I think it's all done on a giant digital screen at HQ. At any rate, I never see electric equipment of any kind on railroad tracks except at traffic crossings.

  61. Judge will motivate on april 25th by scheveningen · · Score: 1

    From indymedia:
    So far, the verdict is "intermediate"; no motivation has been given yet.
    Does anyone know if that means that the verdict can change?

    Also, DB promised to involve the Dutch police. This could mean two lawsuits: one between DB and XS4ALL, and one between the Dutch DoJ and XS4ALL.

  62. First Amendment by count_dooku · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    Deutsche Bahn will file suit in Germany, where all three search engine companies have subsidiaries, because it feels it would not stand a chance in a U.S. court because of freedom of speech allowed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    "There is no chance to sue them in the U.S. You are really allowed to put anything on the Internet there," Schreyer said.

    Not true. IANAL, but there are types of speech that are not protected, for example, yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, the U.S. courts would most likely have a more strict set of rules for defining non-protected speech.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, us Americans and our stupid obsession with free speech. I've heard it all before from these Euro-wimps.

    --

    --
    For the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
    1. Re:First Amendment by CaseStudy · · Score: 2

      Well, the suit would fail. Everything else the guy said is whiny hyperbole.

  63. Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is semi-OT, but interesting.

    A full 25% of Americans are decended from German ancestry.

    Followed by Irish, then British ancestry.

    1. Re:Germans by zer0*ryok0 · · Score: 1

      pulease, did you even watch SNL, mr.walken pretty much filled the census out like everyone else

      --
      the only fact is that everything is an opinion
  64. Look at the timeline and history ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This issue of RADIKAL is quite old. At least
    5 years and it contains no earth shattering
    information either.

    Also this exact issue has been used as a
    censoring test ball previously. So this
    looks suspiciously for another try to get
    a grip at unwanted web content.

  65. Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Seems to me... this is what Freenet is for.
    Just toss the document into Freenet and publish
    its key on the website.

  66. Re:And the interesting part is (getting off topic) by sugrshack · · Score: 1
    you are wrong. For instance, there are numerous organizations in germany which are illegal to be a member of...(such as Bader Meinhoff) this is not true in the US.

    what Germany does have is a law which forbids the creation of any laws which demean humans, which the US does not have. This is interpreted to include things such as the death penalty (which most of the civilized world considers abhorrent anyway)

    --
    I can't believe it's not lard!
  67. worried about the US Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They should be worried about violating the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

    http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

    Article 19.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

  68. And the problem is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like the site in question is a radical, subversive political organizations mouthpiece on the internet and should be shut down post haste... there are limits to free speech when it imposes a clear and present danger to society or self.

  69. free speech is in the german consitution by tempmpi · · Score: 4, Informative
    Art. 5
    (1) Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.

    (1) Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
    (2) Diese Rechte finden ihre Schranken in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze, den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zum Schutze der Jugend und in dem Recht der persönlichen Ehre.

    (2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the provisions of law for the protection of youth and by the right to inviolability of personal honor.
    Translation from: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.ht ml
    Why the freespeech in germany isn't as free as in the USA is because of the second part. Most of the restrictions of the free speech are because the content of the speech is against the constiution.
    --
    Jan
    1. Re:free speech is in the german consitution by frost22 · · Score: 2, Redundant
      [redundant. I said this before]

      So you Quote Art 5 GG:
      1) Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion
      Pathetic. Note sentence (2), which makes the article essentially worthless.

      Try a little proof of concept: Write a short tutorial on how to capture the flag in Unreal Tornament. Put it up on your web site. Get hauled to jail.
      Most of the restrictions of the free speech are because the content of the speech is against the constiution
      You actually believe that propaganda line, do you ? My ass! Stalin used to call people like you "usefull idiots".

      People even get convicted for telling politically incorrect jokes in this country (Germany, that is. I live there).

      Fuck censorship!
      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    2. Re:free speech is in the german consitution by tempmpi · · Score: 1
      Try a little proof of concept: Write a short tutorial on how to capture the flag in Unreal Tornament. Put it up on your web site. Get hauled to jail.
      Ok, here is a point where I can agree with you, the protections of minors is something that is way overdone in the german laws. These laws are old now and really need a revison to reflect the changes of the society. The laws for the protections of minors are very annoying for adults while they can't really deliver much "protection" for the minors.
      While putting up some web pages about unreal tournament without some sort of working age control is illegal, in the real life nobody really cares about that.
      --
      Jan
    3. Re:free speech is in the german consitution by Uerige · · Score: 1

      People even get convicted for telling politically incorrect jokes in this country (Germany, that is. I live there).

      Consider our past. Many black people here will always shudder when they hear the word 'neger' (that's a bit like 'nigger'), because that's the word the nazi's used. Apart from that, I've never been or have heard of someone who wasn't able to express his opinion, even if that opinion was 'turks out'. Most people just don't do that because they actually like the idea of having friends. [end rant]

    4. Re:free speech is in the german consitution by frost22 · · Score: 2
      Apart from that, I've never been or have heard of someone who wasn't able to express his opinion, even if that opinion was 'turks out'
      Ahem... wait a moment. Where have you been living during the seventies and eighties ? Do you happen to know how many issues of the "Radikal" paper (which, nota bene, we are talking about here) were not banned ? Does "Mescalero" ring any bell with you ? "Buback-Nachruf" ?

      Some guy wrote an article critical of a terrorist assasination but opened it with a statement that he couldn't hide some hidden "glee" about it, because he disliked the victim so much. This late seventies article - first published, IIRC, in Radikal, and reprinted by student papers all across Germany - set in motion an incredible persecution campaign all across Germany hauling everybody who dared to reprint it into court, accusing these student paper editors of "recruitment for a terrorist organization" or even of terrorist activities. Heck, even in my small backwater university (where I served in student representation for the Young Christian Democrats, i.e. the conservatives :-) ) we still had defense funds and court dates far into the mid-eighties for some poor chaps who had run our student paper back then.

      I could go on. Your "It's only against the Nazis - everbody else is safe" stance is a common myth among politicallly naive middle class people here. Truth is, anything out of mainstream runs into severe troubles. Left Wing, Right Wing, Kurdish Separatist, Islamist, or, more recently, Globalization Opponent - once the powers that be consider you a threat, or even a major pain in the ass, you have essentially lost freedom of expression in Germany.

      Just open you eyes some time. To quote Rosa Luxemburg, "Freedom is always the Freedom of Dissenters".

      Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit der Andersdenkenden.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  70. How about the good old wayback machine =) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  71. Don't you realise... by MosesJones · · Score: 1

    That the average Joe on the street doesn't want to cut power to a domestic railway system, but that your average nutcase or terrorist might.

    What would you say to a site that said

    "10 easy ways to Hijack and airliner and slam it into a building" ?

    And if you say it isn't the same imagine a train carrying nuclear waste being damaged or destroyed. It is censorship but surely this is also an incitement to a criminal act which is a police matter anyway.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Don't you realise... by Rupert · · Score: 2

      There are plans for nuclear weapons on the internet. Why didn't Al-Qaeda just build one of those and let it off in New York?

      Could it be because there is a difference between knowing how to do something and being able to do it?

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    2. Re:Don't you realise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There are plans for nuclear weapons on the internet. Why didn't Al-Qaeda just build one of those and let it off in New York?

      Maybe the plans weren't as detailed as the ones just published by the British government on their first atomic bomb design.

  72. anyone concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than correct the security and hazard problems involved with the transportation of radioactive toxic waste, this company is simply outlawing the manual for sabotage. Obviously one person figured it out, so more will, its not like terrorism is going to go away because people can't figure out how to destroy things.

  73. I am a backup site of the english translations. by aphor · · Score: 2

    If the sites go away, reply to this comment with the news, and I can honor reasonable requests for copies of the english translated mirror.

    This *MAY* require PGP (GPG) key exchange, so make sure you have yours ready!

    --
    --- Nothing clever here: move along now...
  74. Say it with me now... by Schnapple · · Score: 1
    ...GOOGLE TOPIC.

    We need a GOOGLE TOPIC .

  75. The Internet knows no boundaries... by gillbates · · Score: 2
    As I understand it, this site "offers instructions on how to sabotage railway systems," which is illegal information in Germany.

    Isn't it ironic now that the U.S. is starting to enforce it's laws outside its borders (Dimitry Skylarov, anyone?) that other countries expect to do the same? Did we really expect an international medium (the Internet) to comply with the laws of just one country?

    What is needed is for all of the countries which use the Internet to agree on a set of standards/rules which govern the Internet, and a way for those who want to post material which violates those rules to restrict their sites to countries where such material is legal. Currently, the web knows no borders and has no means of keeping information from traversing state and national boundaries into areas where it may be illegal (China excepted...) While this might seem draconian, it could easily keep citizens of other countries from being prosecuted should they choose to visit countries in which their viewpoints are illegal (such as the U.S. and China), since such illegal content would not be available to the prosecutors in the offended country.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:The Internet knows no boundaries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "it's laws outside its borders (Dimitry Skylarov, anyone?) "

      Please, stop distorting the truth if you want to be taken seriously.
      He came to US and tried to pitch his products here.

    2. Re:The Internet knows no boundaries... by russotto · · Score: 1

      *sigh*. Yes, I know this is off topic but someone up-modded the Coward into visibility so it's worth responding to.

      Sklyarov was not arrested for attempting to pitch his products here. He was arrested while he was here merely out of convenience; he could have gone surfing here and if the FBI and Adobe had heard about it they would have grabbed him.

      While the US was able to establish jurisdiction over Sklyarov's employers, that was because, among other things, they hired a US company to sell their products. Because the case against Sklyarov itself is on hold (and will be dismissed after one year if he testifies to the actions of Elcomsoft), the question of whether he personally actually did anything to subject himself to US jurisdiction will not be answered.

      Why did the FBI arrest Sklyarov rather than going after Elcomsoft directly? I don't know, but I can make a guess: Terrorism, of the state-sponsored type. They wanted to send a message to programmers that if you break the DMCA, they'll put you in a cage. The intent was to put a damper on both civil disobedience activities and ordinary disobedience. Worked against me.

      As for the current case... doesn't much matter. Suppose DB wins against Google. Google takes the page off http://www.google.de. They leave it on http://www.google.com and everywhere else, relying on the French govt v. Yahoo case. And in the meantime, a whole bunch more people mirror the document and those mirrors end up in Google's (even google.de) caches.

  76. Why fix the problem when you can go to court? by Dan512 · · Score: 1

    Christian Schreyer, head of the legal department for media and competition law at Deutsche Bahn in Berlin said, "We always have trouble with people sabotaging our system and people were following these instructions."

    Shouldn't he also be talking about how the train system is being fixed as fast as humanly possible?

  77. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Deutschland hat angst von Google! Schade!

    That's "Deutschland hat Angst vor Google".
  78. Freedom by NightEyez · · Score: 0

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    - Ben Franklin

  79. Number 1 reason America is a great place to live by phunhippy · · Score: 2

    Deutsche Bahn will file suit in Germany, where all three search engine companies have subsidiaries, because it feels it would not stand a chance in a U.S. court because of freedom of speech allowed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  80. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  81. Archive.org has it. by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 2

    http://web.archive.org/web/19981206125714/www.xs4a ll.nl/~tank/radikal/

    or simply go to www.archive.org and type in http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/radikal

    --
    dinner: it's what's for beer
  82. Search Engine Censorship . . . Again! by ancarett · · Score: 1

    Yet another attempt to whitewash online reality by eliminating not only websites but also their very mention (especialloy in search engines). Somewhat reminiscent of Scientology's heavy-handed attempts at search engine censorship employing the DMCA?

    From the Infoworld article: "Even if the pages no longer exist on XS4ALL sites, we want the search engines to remove the link because it still advertises a handbook for destruction. People will start looking for it elsewhere and we don't want that."

    If you do a search for Deutsche Bahn on Google, the first two links are now to this news story. Precisely the opposite effect?

    --
    ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
  83. Re:And the interesting part is (getting off topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention that Scientology is illegal in Germany.

    Maybe it's not so bad after all....

  84. Real men by hettb · · Score: 0

    don't need no stinking "Freedom of Speech."

  85. Illegal Instructions by Caraig · · Score: 2

    I think that information like this can be potentially destructive. I would never condone someone using one of Hayduke's books, or the Anarchist's Cookbook, for harming another person; nor do I believe that books such as 'Making Your 30-03 Springfield Fully Automatic' really has any purpose in our civilization.

    That being said, information such as this -- for picking locks, field-expedient ordnance, dirty tricks, even making ricin-DNSO -- is important to have. There may very well come a time when it is not only important but *neccessary* to conduct illegal activities for whatever reason. One thing that comes to mind is for a guerilla resistance movement in an occupied country. Information on how to fight the occupying army is at least important as food and ammunition to such groups. Yes, this information can be potentially devastating, but there exists the potential, real need for it.

    Now, obviously, this information can be abused. I'm sure there are real-life anarchists out there who would jump at the chance to "stick it to the Man" and in the process kill a lot of people. There's no easy way to address this. There are two conflicting needs here, and unfortunately there's no way to be equitable about it: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. How do you decide what information is kept free?

    --
    "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    1. Re:Illegal Instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...nor do I believe that books such as 'Making Your 30-03 Springfield Fully Automatic' really has any purpose in our civilization.

      Like this Pederson Device?

  86. Duty of Care by awol · · Score: 1

    I find all this kind of thing intriguing. The internet is the vehicle of the esoteric. I think that it is very easy to run a powerful argument that the activities performed in a given jurisdiction are subject to the laws of that jurisdiction (most I hope would agree). However what about a communications service provider? If a one of their customers is shown to be doing something illegal within the customers jurisdiction then (given that it is serious enough) I think that one could argue that their connectivity should be removed. But the comms provider has no duty of care as to what packets are sent over its network (or who retrieves those packets). In legal terms, they are too remote, despite their actual proximity. For example the taxi driver that takes an armed robber to the bank. They are not an accomplice, but were they to become aware, they then get a duty of care that affects their continuing supply of the service.

    The international nature of the internet is an important factor here, but jurisdiction shopping is an old issue. It is not novel. If you want to set up a site the promotes hostility towards people or things, host it in th US where your free speech is more robustly protected (interesting as to whether it is consitutionally protect given that one might not be a citizen :-) not in Europe (and especially not France or Germany) where the censoring these ideas is much more widely accepted.

    All the technical issues about the difficulty of actually detecting such illegality is relevant but only in an executive sense, ie the executive arm of government has to balance the difficulty of enforcement against the cost of over vigorous restraint from the legislative branch.

    --
    "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
  87. Re:Number 1 reason America is a great place to liv by TurboThy · · Score: 0

    Oh I wish I also lived in USA so I too could have greater freedom of speech. Oh, wait. I would probably be gunned down before I had a chance to say anything.

    --
    78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  88. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by leereyno · · Score: 2
    From the infoworld article:

    "Deutsche Bahn recently sent letters to all three U.S. search engine operators asking them to remove the hyperlinks to the online copies of two articles from the German-language left-wing extremist publication, Radikal, which has been outlawed in Germany."

    Outlawed? I had no idea that an entire publication could be made illegal in that country. But then it is not too suprising considering the fact that they outlaw anything and everything to do with the Nazi era just like France does. Nevermind the fact that armbands with swastika's on them can't hurt anyone. I'm of the strong opinion that reminders of the Nazi era should be kept around and carefully studied so that the next time a similar group, such as Scientology, comes around the people will know it for what it is.

    If you live in the US, be glad. Our country may not be perfect, but at least here attempts to silence political views have to be done quietly and covertly rather than through direct and obvious government action.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by huh_ · · Score: 1

      I'm of the strong opinion that reminders of the Nazi era should be kept around and carefully studied so that the next time a similar group, such as Scientology, comes around the people will know it for what it is.
      If I'm not mistaken, Scientology is already banned in Germany.

    2. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You ever been to Germany? They have plenty of museums etc on the subject so information on the Nazis and what happened is freely available. They are however very quick to pounce on anything that may be glorifying the Nazis in anyway AFAIK but I don't live there I only visited.

    3. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by smithmc · · Score: 1
      Our country [the US] may not be perfect, but at least here attempts to silence political views have to be done quietly and covertly rather than through direct and obvious government action.

      ...so we should be happy that our government erodes our rights and freedoms silently and stealthily, rather than out in the open where at least people will be aware of it?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    4. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by frost22 · · Score: 2
      They are however very quick to pounce on anything that may be glorifying the Nazis in anyway AFAIK but I don't live there I only visited.
      Gloriyfing ? You mean, like Wolfenstein glorified Nazis by letting you shoot them ?

      Hogwash. Nazi Symbols are generelly banned in Germany. There are a few restrictions to this, essentially traditional art (Films: yes: Computer Games: No) and science. But nobody asks for your intentions when you display the Swastika. You just get fined.
      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    5. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by theSelkie · · Score: 0

      Hogwash. Nazi Symbols are generelly banned in Germany. There are a few restrictions to this, essentially traditional art (Films: yes: Computer Games: No) and science. But nobody asks for your intentions when you display the Swastika. You just get fined.

      if you carry a shirt showing a person throwing a hakenkreuz into a thrash can -> no problem

      if you carry a shirt showing a crossed out hakenkreuz -> no problem

      if you carry a red armband with a hakenkreuz on it you will get fined (and hopefully also questioned by passengers)

    6. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by frost22 · · Score: 2

      So, dear Besserwisser, pray tell why was Wolfenstein 3D banned (and banned in this case is not "indiziert", but "beschlagnahmt", if you know the difference).

      It was essentially about shooting up bad Guys with Swastikas. They argued that the mere display of Swastikas was illegal.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    7. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by Otto+Normal · · Score: 1

      No, scientology isn't banned. It's beeing denied the taxation status of religions as it is categorized as a for-profit organization; it is being observed by the "Verfassungsschutz" (federal agency for the protection of the constitution) as it is aiming for domination and therefore ultimately aiming at the removal of the constitution.

    8. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by theSelkie · · Score: 0

      because it is neither documentation nor a political statement against NS.

    9. Re:Am I the only one who sees a problem here? by Uerige · · Score: 1

      if you carry a red armband with a hakenkreuz on it you will get fined (and hopefully also questioned by passengers)

      Actually, most passengers will go by pretending they didn't see anything. There's another kind of people: The left winged ones, who will probably do worse things than fining you.

  89. Re:Number 1 reason America is a great place to liv by phunhippy · · Score: 1

    Learn to Shoot Quicker or get out of my way :)

  90. Re:And the interesting part is (getting off topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to disappoint you: Scientology isn't illegal in Germany, it's just not "Church of Scientology".

  91. not again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Info about the Radikal case from 5 years ago is available on (for example)

    http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/under/cu9_32.txt

    Now they want to go after search engines for keeping "forbidden" pages in cache. What is next? Going by computer to computer and checking hard drives?

    -D

  92. To become what one hates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting that even though the German government (and also the citizenry) seems to be very sensitive to its unpleasant past, the government seems to be adopting tactics and methods used in that very past.

    If one adopts the methods and tactics of the reviled past organization, how much closer does that bring one to becoming that organization?

  93. Oh, I know some Germans who would disagree... by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Funny, I live in Germany and am married to a German woman who just *loves* Hogan's Heroes. (Dubbed into German, of course.) And she's not the only German I know who likes it or quotes from it. (For the record, Col. Klink is dubbed with a Saxon accent; Sgt. Schultz is dubbed with a thick Bavarian accent. Which is actually kinda cute.)

    There's no accounting for taste, anyway.

    The obvious point is, if it's shown on German TV and Germans apparently like to watch it, it doesn't seem to be too insulting to Germans, now does it? (So much for your attempt at political correctness.)

    You want to see something *really* politically incorrect about WWII? Try the British comedy "Allo Allo"...you know, the series with the "Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies by Van Klump", a gay German tank commander, a Prussian general whose idea of politics is to shoot French peasants and so on. (And again, my wife loves it, as do I.)

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
    1. Re:Oh, I know some Germans who would disagree... by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Funny, I live in Germany and am married to a German woman who just *loves* Hogan's Heroes. (Dubbed into German, of course.) And she's not the only German I know who likes it or quotes from it. (For the record, Col. Klink is dubbed with a Saxon accent; Sgt. Schultz is dubbed with a thick Bavarian accent. Which is actually kinda cute.)

      And to take it one step further - Hogan's Heroes is funny because it mirrors real life in peacetime, not in wartime. I'll draw a more current parallel between Hogan's Heroes and Dilbert:

      Col. Klink - the incompetent middle manager (pointy-haired boss)
      Sgt. Schulz - the incompetent office grunt (Wally!)
      Hochstedter - the guy who believes in enforcing policy and ideology, no matter how crazy (the classic Human Resources/Accounting paradigm)
      Gen. Burqhalter (sp) - every once in a while, the CEO shows up, expresses frustration at middle management that the project failed, but can never quite prove that anyone screwed up enough to fire them.
      The Allied Prisoners - The people who actually get the day-to-day work done - either behind management's back or in spite of management's best efforts. And when ever that fails, by saving their manager's ass when the CEO's in town, and keeping the gravy train running :-)

      Typical dialogue from just about any episode:

      Hogan: "See, Klink? The reason you've never had an escape from Stalag 13 is 'cuz even though we're your prisoners, we love you, and you're just too damn good at keeping this place running well!"

      Klink: "Ahhh... yes... Yes, you know, Hogan, even though we're on different sides of this war, I think you're finally starting to see things our way!"

      Hogan: "The place wouldn't be the same without you, Colonel!"

    2. Re:Oh, I know some Germans who would disagree... by crotherm · · Score: 2

      The truely funny thing is that not all people will see the same thing when watching Hogan's Heroes. My mother grew up in Germany during WWII. She had to be part of Hitler's Youth and all that stuff even though her father was not a supported of the Nazi party (and died because of it). She married a U.S. GI in the 50's and moved to the US. She absolutely HATED Hogan's Heroes. We all thought it was great, but she made us turn it off when she was around.

      So yes, that show IS insulting. It just depends on who you ask.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    3. Re:Oh, I know some Germans who would disagree... by Datafage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's nothing that's not offensive to somebody out there, the question is whether or not to let that silence all culture.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    4. Re:Oh, I know some Germans who would disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that big gay purple dinosaur is offensive to me, and I make people turn it off too. Shouldn't we ban that as well?

  94. The irony! by SmileyBen · · Score: 2

    Ah, the beautiful irony! The DB guy says 'There's no chance to sue them in the US, you can put anything online there'. Of course, he's half right: you probably are allowed to put instructions for how to sabotage a train system on a website (whether you think that's a good thing or not is another matter). But boy-oh-boy, if you put something online that might affect the tiniest bit the record or movie industry's revenue, you'll be sued to hell.

  95. Let's roll... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful


    That the average Joe on the street doesn't want to cut power to a domestic railway system, but that your average nutcase or terrorist might.


    What would you say to a site that said


    "10 easy ways to Hijack and airliner and slam it into a building" ?


    Nice shot at a knee-jerk reaction.


    What would I say to such a document? Post it. Link to it. Alert the media. Get CNN to do a cyber-scare article on it. Get people thinking about the state of security in their airports and the danger this represents.


    Know why a group of people were able to seize guided missiles for the price of some flying lessons, airline tickets, and box cutters? It wasn't because box cutters are such a formidable weapon. It is because the passangers and crew of those airlines did not expect what was to come. Up to that point, hijackings tended to be isolated events that lead up to a police standoff on the ground. Most of the time, the majority of hijack victoms survived.


    The passangers of Flight 93 quickly learned of the fate of other hijacked airlines that day thanks to mobile phones. With the cry of "let's roll" (accredited to Todd Beamer), the passangers of that flight attacked their captors. It cost them their lives as the entire flight went down in a field in western Pennsylvania. But their flight was the only one to not also crash in to a monument and take additional lives on the ground (authorities believe the flight was headed for a target in Washington).


    The difference between Flight 93 and other doomed flights that day was a slim margin of knowledge. A realization that the threat was different than the past. Information.


    If a group attempted the same tactic today (with box cutters, much less the nail-clippers being confiscated by airport security now), they would meet the same resistance. Additional attempts of airline terrorism (the shoe-bomber being a prime example) has lead to quick action by fellow passangers to subdue their would-be attacker.


    What would a document called "10 easy ways to Hijack an airliner and slam it into a building" do? I can tell you what a lack of such a document didn't do - stop the events of 9/11 from happening.

    1. Re:Let's roll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      brilliant, absolutely right.
      Also it's funny how they haven't balmed the crash on people using there mobiles while in the plane. It would seem that mobiles have saved more lives than they have taken in airplanes.

    2. Re:Let's roll... by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      A free/democratic system will always be prone to parasitic cancers ("terrorists", whatever, people who use the freedom of the system against itself). This cannot be legislated against without ruining the freedom of the system in the first place. The same is true for the internet, denial of service attacks, p2p file sharing systems, etc. The only way to combat it is raising awareness and building an organic proactive (but fuzzy and prone to false negatives and positives) defense into the system. Think of the human immune system. We are not programmed with every single pathogen out there, nor would we want to be. We use a bunch of heuristics to identify anomolous behavior, track it, contain it, and dynamically generate new defenses against it. Legislation against boxcutters or books on "how to derail trains" will never be the answer.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:Let's roll... by jsac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read the article which the DB is trying to have pulled (it's in German, and too long to translate -- and I bet the babelfish will choke on the technical railway terms). It's a technical explanation of how to disable the axel-counting sensors which are located at intervals on stretches of track. The sensors let the central signal controlling computer know whether there is a train on a specific track section or not.

      The basic mechanism is: when a train is allowed to proceed, via a green signal, onto a section of track, the axel-counter tallies the number of axels and the central computer switches the signal to red. As the train leaves the section of track a corresponding axel-counter tallies the axels and if axels-in == axels-out, the central controller knows the track is free again.

      Now, here's the rub (and this is pointed out in the article as well): if the axel-counters are offline, the signal defaults to red. Trains may still proceed along the track section, but only if they radio ahead and move at walking pace.

      So the situation is nothing like teaching someone how to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. Using the detailed technical information in the article, the only thing you can do is really inconvenience trains by forcing them to slow to a crawl along track sections you've damaged the axel-counters to. Sure, if you go out and take a battle-axe to random pieces of railroad equipment, you may damage something that causes a crash; or you may stick the axe in a high-voltage transformer and electrocute yourself. But, in a certain sense, the article is teacheing responsible sabotage -- what to disable which has no chance of causing loss of life -- not to you, and not to train passengers.

      --
      "The urge to fly from modern systems, instead of moving through them to even greater, fairer things is, I think, an indi
    4. Re:Let's roll... by surfnerd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You have an interesting point, but it is lacking.

      Have you ever read Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy? Well, I bet someone who helped to plan the 9/11 attack did. The book ends with a commercial airplane being flown / crashed into a senate meeting killing the president and a number of senators. This book seemed like an unrealistic problem until it actually happened. No one took it seriously until a real airplane was used as a weapon.

      So I do not agree that some obscure website called "10 easy ways to Hijack an airliner and slam it into a building" would have saved anyone any grief.

    5. Re:Let's roll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The passangers of Flight 93 quickly learned of the fate of other hijacked airlines that day thanks to mobile phones. With the cry of "let's roll" (accredited to Todd Beamer), the passangers of that flight attacked their captors.

      They tried to attack their captors but their captors cut the oxygen to the passenger cabins. Black box audio reports say that.

      The new information you mentioned about using the planes as missiles was used to shoot the plane down by fighter planes

      FOr more info, goto http://www.flight93crash.com/

    6. Re:Let's roll... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      But, in a certain sense, the article is teacheing responsible sabotage -- what to disable which has no chance of causing loss of life -- not to you, and not to train passengers.

      Thanks for the translation. It's always nice to be defending a good guy or at least a relatively good guy. The hard test is defending the freedom of people/things we don't like.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Let's roll... by krypteia · · Score: 0

      wow best post i've seen on /. in a LONG time

      --
      Spazdot-1 in 10 insightfull articles, and 1 in 10,000 insightfull comments ain't bad.
    8. Re:Let's roll... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      They tried to attack their captors but their captors cut the oxygen to the passenger cabins. Black box audio reports say that.


      Blackbox audio also records someone in the cockpit saying "they're coming". The assumption has been that the voice is that of the hijackers in responce to the passangers. This corresponds with background noise heard from mobile phone conversations at the time. There is obviously some question as to how successful the passenger revolt was - but it did happen. They did attack. And as is evidence from following incidents, passangers are likely to take that route again rather than sit back and hope for the best.


      The new information you mentioned about using the planes as missiles was used to shoot the plane down by fighter planes


      No. What I am saying is that the planes that managed to hit their targets were effectively guided missiles.


      But now that you mention it... yes, I've heard of the rumor. From the very day that the aircraft went down. But there has been no solid evidence. I could understand why such an event wouldn't have happened. And I could see it happening (I've been on alert ground crews before - but not CONUS). And I could understand why shooting down a civilian aircraft would be a sticky subject for the PR-minded top brass.


      But then... all that has little to do with my point.

    9. Re:Let's roll... by NaDrew · · Score: 1

      I sure wish you'd put some spoiler warnings in that post, or perhaps linked to a plot summary somewhere else. I hadn't gotten to Debt of Honor yet.

      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
    10. Re:Let's roll... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      Have you ever read Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy? Well, I bet someone who helped to plan the 9/11 attack did.


      Tom Clancy's stuff always spawns converstations over how plausible his ideas are. I suppose the real draw to his works is that they are plausible enough. And then there's the fact that Clancy doesn't just pull ideas out of thin air. They're often based on real events and concerns.


      Does that mean nobody would have thought of using an airplane as a weapon without Clancy's work? Hardly. The concept was proven rather effective since WWII and the war in the Pacific.



      This book seemed like an unrealistic problem until it actually happened. No one took it seriously until a real airplane was used as a weapon.


      So I do not agree that some obscure website called "10 easy ways to Hijack an airliner and slam it into a building" would have saved anyone any grief.


      I completely agree here. If a major publication from Tom Clancy doesn't gain attention, then its unlikely an obscure web site would either. But then, I still maintain that the existance of such a document would not guarentee a terrorist attack either.


      Of course... this leads to an observation on security (from infosec to physical)...


      Security only comes from pain.


      When you're trying to sell a security concept to the uninitiated, comfortable in their status quo, you have to tell a "scare the horses" story. You have to hit home why it will affect them, and part of that is show the carnage already done to someone else.


      Even then, sometimes you just have to wait until its time to pick up the pieces, perform damage control, and put a new system in place.


      The only way to avoid that is perform the "carnage" yourself. Demonstrate the weekness in a security system by attacking it in a non-destructive manner and prove its weakness. This is the bassis behind such actions as infosec penetration testing as well as the embarassingly successful Red Cell unit in the US Navy.

    11. Re:Let's roll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. The difference between flight 93 and the other flights is that it was shot down

  96. US equivalent by j09824 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The links in question are apparently instructions about how to sabotage transports of nuclear materials in Germany, which happen to be done by rail there.

    In the US, nuclear materials are transported by road. Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if you posted accurate information on the route information, security procedures, and instructions on how to sabotage such a transport here. Do you really believe the FBI wouldn't be knocking on your door? In the current climate, you'd probably simply disappear in some US "holding cell" somewhere, not to be heard from for months or years.

  97. Re:Number 1 reason America is a great place to liv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at your comment I wouldn't be worried if I were you. You sound like such a blithering idiot that no sane person would waste a bullet on you.

  98. deutsch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bag?

  99. It's pretty interesting by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    This is not a flame, just an observation.

    It's pretty interesting to see how many people will jump up and down and scream bloody murder when someone attempts to censor a left-wing website, but those same people are strangely silent when it comes to attempts to censor conservative or right-wing sites, college newspapers, or books.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:It's pretty interesting by sshore · · Score: 1

      Cite examples.

    2. Re:It's pretty interesting by GypC · · Score: 2

      Would you care to furnish any examples of this observed behavior?

    3. Re:It's pretty interesting by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      How 'bout this one? Georgia Tech campus newspapers were stolen and burned because an editorial against racial quotas was in it. Nobody did anything, nobody said anything -- except that the paper later printed an apology for running the editorial and stated its urgent desire not to "offend" anyone.

      This is just one example. There are others that can be produced with more digging. I can go find them, or if you're really interested in this topic you can google for them yourselves.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    4. Re:It's pretty interesting by GypC · · Score: 2

      Good example, thanks.

  100. Just to piss off Slashteens... by CaseStudy · · Score: 2

    Google is pretty much immune under U.S. law for someone else's speech that they're caching. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects them from civil liability.

  101. You can put any content on the internet (not) by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    The Infoworld article states:

    > "There is no chance to sue them in the U.S. You are
    > really allowed to put anything on the Internet
    > there," Schreyer said.

    I bet you can't download the instructions in mp3 format!

  102. Not all speech is protected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that this isn't even something to worry about. If they are publishing infromation on how to disable rail system they should be shut down. Remember, not all free speech in the U.S. is protected.

  103. right, boys and girls, time for counterstrike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Put up as many free sites as you can hosting the material. Post the materials as articles right here, at random. Annoy DB wildly and continually until they learn that trying to suppress speech just results in more people hearing about it.

    If you're feeling in the mood, e-mail DB indicating that the Internet has eliminated the ability to suppress speech, and provide links to said sites, pointing out that people will create more and more instances of these sites (on servers hosted by various countries) until the lawsuit is withdrawn.

    Make sure you indicate quite clearly that you are in complete agreement that acts of sabotage are inappropriate, illegal and reprehensible (even if you sympathise with the environmentalist cause, this isn't relevant here), but that this has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with freedom of information.

  104. Radikal Mirrors by afree87 · · Score: 1
    can be found in the Google cache, but since it's Google that's getting sued, here are all the working ones for your enjoyment:

    There were originally over 58 mirrors, but it seems most of them have chickened out.
  105. Past and present by godot42a · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there will even be a time when people will be able to discuss developments in germany without reference to the nazis. this is 2002 after all, or is my watch wrong?

    1. Re:Past and present by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They won't live that down as long as they keep taking actions consistent with what the Nazis would have done. I'm not saying that it is fair, but it's reality.

      When these kind of things happen in the US, the US government gets compared to the Nazis. So it's awfully hard to expect the German government won't be.

  106. Re:Number 1 reason America is a great place to liv by TurboThy · · Score: 1

    That of course surmises I get to speak my mind before getting shot at.

    --
    78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  107. The Anarchist Cookbook in Germany by karm13 · · Score: 1
    In the U.S. you can still buy The Anarchist's Cookbook [fortunecity.com] even!

    go to the german amazon, cut-and-paste "The Anarchist Cookbook" into the the search field on the top, it even has free shipping...

    btw, you should be aware that sabotage of railroad tracks is not uncommon in germany to fight transports of nuclear waste.

    --

    --
    making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
    1. Re:The Anarchist Cookbook in Germany by Datafage · · Score: 1

      I just ordered some German music from Amazon.de, and the free shipping is only good in Germany. The shipping to the USA is pretty cheap, though.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    2. Re:The Anarchist Cookbook in Germany by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      btw, you should be aware that sabotage of railroad tracks is not uncommon in germany to fight transports of nuclear waste.

      Okay, what kind of idiot thinks it's a good idea to derail a train full of nuclear waste???

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    3. Re:The Anarchist Cookbook in Germany by karm13 · · Score: 1

      well, in theory, the containers should stay intact.
      imagine a slow moving train with a few containers, LOTS of policemen around it trying to keep the train going and the demonstrators trying to stop it. most just stand along the tracks, some try to get on the tracks to stop the train, few chain themselves to the tracks to stop the train for a longer time and a minority of radicals try to sabotage the tracks to keep the train from arriving at its goal.
      the idea behind all this is to make the transportation of nuclear waste more expensive. if such a train would actually be derailed (which is highly unlikely because they check the tracks again and again), i don't belive it would make political sense to have another one going... i assume that's what they think, too.

      --

      --
      making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
  108. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    50K died in vietnam.
    How many in all our other wars (about every 20 years).
    They died defending free speech and the constition.
    Now, we lose 3K in 1 incident and suddenly the republican party wished to remove any and all free speech in the name of a security that we can never have?
    If you think that airports are secure, let me come on board with a small vial of airbourne microbes. Perhaps, some airbourne yersinia pestis. a simple virus
    Perhaps a modified bacteria that will release botulinum toxin in its later growth.
    Or perhaps release a bit of botulinum toxin into the h2o supply for a town.

    Security is something that we will never have no matter how much we try.
    There will always be a way to defeat any system given enough time.

  109. You know by ubernostrum · · Score: 1

    I just heard something like that last week...James Q. Wilson (social scientist, moralist, darling of the conservatives) was speaking at my school, and tossed off some comment about how "conservatives may have committed many evils, but they've never censored speech on a college campus. Liberals are the ones who do that."

    But after hearing that and now your related comment, I still don't think it's true. For one thing, I have yet to see good examples (this happens a lot; e.g., Wilson was also fond of saying that all the students in his classes, when asked whether they'd condemn the Holocaust, had a knee-jerk "well, we have to view it from the Nazi's point of view before we judge" reaction...I live in academia and I've never met anyone who would honestly and seriously say that). In fact, the only examples I have are myself and my friends - against censorship of anything, for any reason, regardless of what "wing" of politics is getting shafted by the censorship, and I think most people who are going to "jump up and down and scream bloody murder" would feel the same way...

  110. Censorship doesn't really solve the problem by ChaosDiscordSimple · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is more of a general rant than about the specifics of this case, but since the discussion has veered into general free speech issues, I think it's appropriate.

    Thanks to the DMCA and similar restrictions, publishing information on cracking dongles (hardware keys for software) is basically illegal. Concrete details on how to crack a dongle definately is. The people putting up information on cracking dongles usually do so for the sole purpose of encouraging others to use illegal copies of software. Clearly the dominant use of this information is criminal.

    So what's the harm in censoring this speech?

    Well, several years ago I was asked to investigate adding copy protection to a new software product (now defunct). My initial research focused on "respectable" publications on the subject. I found almost nothing useful. If the information I found was to be believed, dongles were practically impossible to defeat. So I extended my search to cracker sites. Now I found something. I discovered that all dongle technologies have been defeated on a case by case basis. I discovered which dongle technologies were trivial to defeat and which were very hard to defeat. I learned specific, concrete weaknesses and arguments for and against dongles. With this information I was able to provide solid information for my employers to use to make a decision.

    Let's say that the information on dongle cracking had been removed from the web. Well, my research would have been mostly fruitless. I would have had to largely rely on the misleading claims of the manufacturers themselves and reviews that didn't make serious attempts to defeat the dongles. However, the crackers would still have access to the information, passed around via instant messaging, password protected ftp, email, and other techniques. Dongles would still be insecure, but I wouldn't be able to make reasoned decisions about them.

  111. Mr Burns says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ooo, the Germans are mad at me! I'm so scared! Ooo, the Germans!"

  112. Terrorists are a subset of guerillas by DohDamit · · Score: 2

    Non-governmental supported organized warfare(warfare, violence, tomato, tomahto) is conducted by guerillas. Terrorists specifically target civilian, non-military targets to inspire fear in order to further a political agenda. Setting up in lines on a battlefield across from the military of the government is NOT a terrorist act.

    1. Re:Terrorists are a subset of guerillas by Rand+Race · · Score: 2
      Actually, both guerilla and terrorist refer to tactics. Non governmental forces are irregulars.

      The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden all fit nicely into your definition of terrorism. The fact that they are not called so while the missle bombardment of London is called terrorism points us to the real definition: The enemy commits terror, not us.

      The American revolution was started by irregular forces famous for not setting up in lines.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    2. Re:Terrorists are a subset of guerillas by DohDamit · · Score: 1

      Ahh well, actually I believe the real term for the bombings you have mentioned is war crime, a targetting of civilians by a state-based military command. For it to be considered terrorism, the targetting of civilians is done by irregulars, which you set me straight on.

      As far as the enemy being the only one to commit terror, that double standard is alive and well, isn't it. What else would you call a campaign by a non-military wing of the U.S. government(CIA anyone?) to knock over a government or three? Espionage is a really nice-sounding way of saying terrorism.

      One final note...the Americans did get better throughout the course of the war....<sheepish grin>

  113. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    50K died in vietnam.

    ~4M died in Vietnam.

  114. Only if they knew by ttyp0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obviously Deutsche Bahn isn't too Internet savvy, or they would know that this only causes the information to spread even further. They cases only cost Google money, quite sad really. I'm sure it will be thrown out of court. There have TXT files on the Internet (and way back to the BBS age) detailing how to do just about everything such as creating your own explosives. Only criminals will use the information for illegal activities, since when is having the information illegal? What's this world coming too...

  115. Only try to realize the truth by MemeRot · · Score: 2

    That there is no spoon.
    - Matrix

  116. Dirty trick by dh003i · · Score: 2

    This is a dirty trick, what the German government's doing. Basically, it amounts to, "you can't win the case in the country where Google is based, so you try to win it through a German subsidary". In other words, they're side-stepping the US' 1st Amendments by suing the German subsidary. Thus, if they win in court in Germany, Google may be forced to take down its links to that website in the US too -- because if they didn't, any accounts they have in Germany could be impounded and their offices in Germany could be shut down.

    I heard someone say, "when will we be able to talk about what the Germans do without also mentioning the Nazi's". Well, I'm German (but raised in US). But they still haven't cleared from their nazi and communist past.

    Burned books, banned books, what's the difference? In Germany, "Mein Kampf" is a banned book. So are any other extremist books.

    Who decides what is "bad" and "good"? By banning books, the German government is effectively burning them today.

    I've never read Fahrenheit 451, but I did see the movie. One of my favorite lines was when the Captain says, "We must burn the books, Montag," and then, holding up a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf, continues, "All of the books."

  117. Sense?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Even Soviet Russia had the sense to get involved long before America

    Hmm. I was always under the impression that the USSR signed a nonaggression pact with Germany. And that when Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the Red Army and its air forces took heavy losses due to a total lack of preparation. Stalin even disappeared for days.

    I suppose if you call fighting for survival "good sense", then the USSR sure displayed lots of it.

  118. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That ~4M is irrelevant, since they WEREN'T AMERICAN

  119. isn't that limiting? by MemeRot · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If you can express your opinion freely, but not say things that are against the constitution, does that mean that you can't have an opinion that the constitution is bad? Such an opinion is theoretically impossible or something?

    1. Re:isn't that limiting? by tempmpi · · Score: 1

      You can say something against the constitution, but you can't say something like: "let's get some guns and kill the goverment and throw away the constitution", you can say things like: "the constitution failed to protect the freespeech, there are too many limitation of art. 5, therefore the constitution is a bad one"

      --
      Jan
  120. I thought the Nazis were defeated by whizzird · · Score: 1

    I guess they all switched from politics to the railroad.

  121. Only in Germany... by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

    "There is no chance to sue them in the U.S. You are really allowed to put anything on the Internet there," Schreyer said.

    This is from the country that prides itself in producing- and hosting on the internet- videos of people shitting on each other?

    I think they're the ones with problems about what their citizenry puts on the internet. Sure, shit videos are protected speech here, but 99% of our porn is just licking, sucking, and fucking.

    Maybe thats what happens when you repress free speech like Germany does, cause it might hurt someone's feelings- you get shit videos.

    Blah, give me railroad destruction instructions any day.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  122. Cross a Facist with a Socialist, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you get a Deutsche Bahn Official!

  123. Re:Number 1 reason America is a great place to liv by vidarh · · Score: 2
    May I point out that it was a US law (the DMCA) that was used by Scientology recently to get pages pulled out of Googles index?

    And the same law has already chilled speech by making several people restrict access to various documents to people outside the US (including Alan Cox for a few Linux kernel changelog entries)?

    So much for free speech guarantees in the US.

    Yes, there are areas where you have more free speech rights in the US than in Germany, but the opposite is also true.

  124. *sigh* .. not the wrong "Fire" in theater argument by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

    > but there have always been some things you couldn't do. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example.

    That is a fallacious argument. You might want to read this to see why.

    http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:www.fatalblin dness.com/FREEDOM990628.htm

  125. More info about XS4ALL by phyxeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    xs4all has also taken heat for hosting some anti-scientology pages.
    There's some interesting stuff about when they got raided by the CoS (church of scientology) here.

    Excerpt: A corporation like CoS, having its' own security service with a capacity equal to that of a small country, would scare the shit out of any normal firm. XS4ALL, however, is NOT a normal middle-sized firm. It is an ex-foundation, an offshoot of the Dutch hacker-magazine "HackTic". The staff at XS4ALL are ALL cyberpunks, former long-haired anarchists happy to find themselves in charge of a company so fast growing, that it is considered important for the Dutch national economy. And as you can tell from its' name, this is a company which wants to give everyone access to information, worldwide.

    --
    __
    Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
  126. Deutsche Bahn ban HOWTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Copyright some create work in the company name. This can be as simple as confiscating an employee's post-its and claiming that the doodles on them are artistic works-for-hire under the employee's contract.

    2. Make sure that the work is commercially valuable. You can do this by arbitrarily assigning an insanely inflated price to the work. Make sure you sell at least one copy (this is important--see step 6 below).

    3. "Digitize" the work by scanning it into a computer and saving it on a floppy disk.

    4. Place the floppy disk within a secure environment, say between two heavily-used train rails.

    5. Re-brand all of the high speed train traffic along the rails as an "access-control" system designed to prevent people from reaching the digital work.

    6. Accuse Google et all, of linking to pages that distribute information on how to bypass your advanced new access control system by blowing up the rails. Claim it threatens your profits, as you made X amount of money selling the work in step 2, but since the appearance of the unlawful material on the net, you haven't sold a single copy, proof that evil internet hackers are choking the lifeblood out of your proven business model. (Note actual legal documents should use much stronger emotional language.)

    Oh crap, I seem to have forgotten what side I was on again.

  127. I have a mirror up by joeldg · · Score: 1

    wget'ing the whole thing now from another source and piped through babelfish so us english readers can know how to disable german railroads.. http://204.251.2.39/radikal/ should be done a little later.. as for the free speech thing.. well, out on the west coast I read about a protest that said "Hate speech is not free speech" and I thought about how stupid people were with the "IS NOT" portion of that and thought if you limit it in any way, then it is no longer free speech so they are shooting themselves in the foot, the same people who print hate magazines against logging companies complaining about maxim magazine.. *sigh* I am actually sick of this argument.. -joeldg

  128. Two things by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    One - if someone can ban something, it should only be for residents in and citizens in their country. E.g. Germany bans Deutsche Bahn related post - then servers located in Germany, and those in the .de domain, and those with .eu or .org or .edu or .com registered as being in Germany should be the only ones affected.

    Two - One is not currently practical. Therefore we must resist the attempt to ban access for those of us in the Rest Of The World, the Majority, from the actions of the Minority (Germany).

    All the rest is legal fluff.
    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  129. I think this will actually stop all the terrorists by orichter · · Score: 1

    ...who sit around saying to themselves, "I think I'd like to terrorize Germany today, if only I could think of a good way to really get 'em. I know, perhaps I can find a German website which could give me some ideas." It will also stop all the normally sane people who one day surfing, happen across this site and think, "You know, that might be kind of fun."

    We'd better get google sued before this gets mirrored in the US, because once it gets on a U.S. website, they're screwed. I hope it doesn't make it to Slashdot, 'cause then they'd be really screwed. Of course terrorists would never look on a U.S. website for information about how to commit terrorism in Germany, so I guess they might be safe if they can shutdown all the German sites. Good thing we've got the clear thinking quick witted people on our side. For a second there, I thought we might someday have another terrorist attack.

  130. Random English Teacher ATTACK!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read a few articles about it and it basicly is as follows.

    "basically" - English was designed with the aid of a random number generator.

    In Germany there is some resistment against nuclear energy. The goverment is not moving as fast as some groups may like, to abandon nuclear energy. This left wing radical groups try to block the movement of the waste leaving the power plants to their destination. This movement is in 99% done with the railroad. So now the task is to block the railroad. And for that this 'newspaper' was written an artikel of how to change the signals etc.

    "resistance"
    "article"

    This newspaper was hosted by XS4ALL and now moved.

    "removed" - "Moved" would imply that it was made available again by the same people, in this context. Your meaning is quite clear, it just sounds odd.

    Also, "has been" should follow "now": "...and now has been moved" sounds much more natural than the implicit "...and now [was] moved." "Has been" indicates a present quality of the subject's history, acurrent possession of a previous event, so it follows "now" naturally, while "was" indicates a past condition or quality, and doesn't naturally follow "now" (unless you're using the curious tenses of storytelling, in which "now" can refer to a past moment).

    There has been a ruling to take down the sides from a dutch judge. And it was taken down. All the leftovers (links to the side) are now on target.

    I think you mean "sites" not "sides."

    I found the orginal text "KLEINER LEITFADEN ZUR BEHINDERUNG VON BAHNTRANSPORTEN ALLER ART" [Small introduction to hindering any transportation by railway] today with no problem.

    The information once in the internet can hardly be removed. It is almost imposible. As seen here.

    "impossible"

    --Random English Teacher

  131. Deutsche Bahn patent infringement by Skapare · · Score: 2

    Isn't Deutsche Bahn infringing on that patent that Anonymous Coward got registered for the business method of using lawsuits as a means to get content massively duplicated and spread all over the internet very rapidly?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  132. "Common Good" be damned by ccmay · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The German (and European) love for the "common good" over the individual rights of Man is why their ground is soaked with the blood of millions. Collectivism always ends in hatred, oppression, war and death.

    Fellow Americans! We have NOTHING to learn from Euro-trash socialists and collectivists. Their century has passed, and with it the souls of hundreds of millions of individuals sacrificed on the altar of the "common good." It is a remnant of feudalism, when it was assumed that by the mere fact of your birth you owed service and duty to the benefit of someone else.

    Our nation was founded in order to leave all the tribal hatreds and social castes and religious dogmatism of Europe behind. We're better than that! We're Americans! Theirs is an inferior, decaying, stagnant culture of overbearing government control and oppression. Ours is a dynamic, thriving, shining city on a hill that will only continue to improve. We will leave them on the ash heap of history: the place that invented civilization and human liberty and then pissed it all away for the mess of pottage known as the "common good."

    To hell with the common good! Undermine big government, and teach your kids to hate it! Smash statism and collectivism and communitarianism in all their forms! Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  133. Infoworld quote: Hilarious! by ccmay · · Score: 2
    "People will start looking for it elsewhere and we don't want that," said Schreyer, adding that Deutsche Bahn will also take action against other sites that host the Radikal articles.

    This has got to be the funniest thing I have ever seen in Infoworld. Short of an advertisement during the Super Bowl, I can't think of anything else they could do that would be more likely to make people want to look for it elsewhere. Have they learned nothing from the idiocy of the Scientology copyright wars?

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  134. Censorship abound. by Decimal · · Score: 2

    We don't need Freedom of Speech protections to protect Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website.

    Apparently we do! I've searched and searched and for the life of me I can't find any reference to Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website. Curse those censors! They've already gotten to Google on this one!

    First Dimitri, now this. Enough is enough! It's time we took a stand against this corporate anti-puppy campaign! Who's willing to register http://www.boycottpetsmart.com?

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
    1. Re:Censorship abound. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've searched and searched and for the life of me I can't find any reference to Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website.

      But it's right here!

      Oh, dang that Slashdot link markup...

  135. You must be joking! by RKloti · · Score: 1

    Bad design? How do you design a railway that is immune to sabotage?! Have you ever seen a railway before?

    It's worth noting that DB runs ICE (InterCity Express) locomotives/rolling stock that reaches speeds in excess of 300 km/h. At that speed, derailing the train could not only kill hundereds of passengers, but also do seriously damage anything the trains hits as well.

    Derailing trucks carrying radioactive material, which is, I believe, the aim of these documents (I haven't read them, though I can read German) and this is quite dangerous. Although the said rolling stock is designed to withstand collisions, it's stupid to take risks like that for no reason. And the people doing this call themselves environmentalists. Presumably, derailing a train would be a big propaganda victory for them (Look! Evil RADIOACTIVE TOXIC DANGEROUS-TO-CHILDREN stuff is crashing! Stop it now! Before it's too late!) It wouldn't solve any ecological purpose. Of course, who would have thought Greenpeace would do something just for the PR...

    That being said, I still don't think the site should be taken down, unless it is actively inciting people to destroy or mutilate tracks.

    1. Re:You must be joking! by nolife · · Score: 2

      How do you design a railway that is immune to sabotage?! Have you ever seen a railway before?

      I seperated myself from the railroad thing a bit but my point was consistant with yours...
      There are many ways for destruction or tampering to occur. Trying to coverup or mute those who expose a method is not going to hinder someone that has a goal to cause harm...
      I do not agree or condone the actions of these activists either, but shutting down a few web sites is not going to make a radioactive transfer over rail secure. They should take the money they are wasteing on law suits and hire some more physical security that may actually be able to stop someone.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    2. Re:You must be joking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the goal is not to derail the cars - their backup site explains it quite well (Oh the wonders of google). It "kills" the signal system, simulation a mechanical error, forcing the train to slow down to about 15km/h.

  136. Great job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the Infoworld-article

    DB-Spokesman said "Even if the pages no longer exist on XS4ALL sites, we want the search engines to remove the link because it still advertises a handbook for destruction. People will start looking for it elsewhere and we don't want that," said Schreyer, adding that Deutsche Bahn will also take action against other sites that host the Radikal articles.


    Well, thats dumb. because now everbody knows and could search for it. Maybe they even inspired some morons by this.

    Great job, DB, going into internet history as a searchmachine censoring and suing company.

  137. You don't know what you're talking about. by ccmay · · Score: 1
    The ten amendments which make up the Bill of Rights are qualitatively different from the others. They were not added to the Constitution after it was in place, like all the others. They were part of the original document ratified by the existing States.

    Horse shit. The Constitution was written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was proposed in Congress in 1789 and ratified in 1791. Two minutes spent reviewing the National Archives website would have shown you this.

    the order in which they appear was almost as contentious a subject of debate as what they actually say. It is no coincidence that they appear in the order they do.

    More rubbish. There were originally 17 amendments proposed in Congress by James Madison. Five of these were dropped or amalgamated in the Congress. Twelve of them were sent to the states for ratification. The first two were not ratified; if they had been, then today's First Amendment would actually be the Third. And the most important Amendments, at least to those discussing the issue at the time they were proposed, were the current Ninth and Tenth amendments (originally the Elevenbth and Twelfth) -- yet they were placed last.

    There is no historical justification for supposing that the First Amendment, or for that matter the Second, is of any more importance or inviolability than the others, simply because of the order in which it appears in the Bill. I defy you to produce any support for your opinions.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
    1. Re:You don't know what you're talking about. by Alsee · · Score: 2

      There were originally 17 amendments proposed

      Facinating. I did a google search and found some info, but I had trouble finding a full descrition of the other seven (the most promising result was a link to a page that's gone).

      Is there any chance you have a good link for this?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:You don't know what you're talking about. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2
      Okay, okay, I misremembered. But from the National Archives site (thanks for the link):

      During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. Image of the Bill of Rights

      On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.


      So my point was that the Bill of Rights was a necessary condition for acceptance of the Constitution. This makes these ten amendments rather different, historically if not legally, from all the others.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:You don't know what you're talking about. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      No, the Constitution had already been accepted. The Bill of Rights was added *after* acceptance because the original Constitution was found to be flawed. This is why the Bill of Rights are embodied in *Amendments* and *not* in the original Constitution itself.

      The first 10 amendments are different from all that follow in the sense that the First Congress was aware that the Constitution was flawed and worked quickly to eliminate those flaws, passing these ten amendments in just two years.

      Would that future Congresses had found these ten amendments to be so critically important.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  138. 22.3 Year rule by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    It happened over 22.3 years ago, therefore it can be declared funny.
    Don't you know about the 22.3 year rule?

  139. Time to learn how to use Freenet by pepper_pusher · · Score: 0

    www.freenetproject.org

    Learn today, maybe tomorrow this link would be
    removed if they'll sue /. ;>

    --
    girl
  140. German law allows censorship by schmaltz · · Score: 2
    (1) Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech...There shall be no censorship.

    (2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the provisions of law for the protection of youth and by the right to inviolability of personal honor.
    Did you read it? The second clause limits the first. It is similar to Canada's and Australia's in this regard. Basically, "You shall have freedom of speech, unless the people legislate otherwise." So, it is unlike the U.S. constitution, which states it in more absolute, less dilute terms, only to be softened (like with kitty pr0n) by the Supremes.

    In Germany, there are laws against free expression, banning hate speech, Nazi-talk, and so forth. An outcome of a certain war, I believe. That said, it is clear the above clauses permit arbitrary reduction of free speech, and allow for too much government control.
    --
    Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
  141. Babelfish version of the offending article by AlastairBurt · · Score: 1
    SMALL MANUAL FOR THE HANDICAP OF RAIL TRANSPORT OF ALL KINDS

    simply, economically, frequently repeatable

    In front: The trackage of the course is gespickt with Apperaturen, which are to guarantee safe and as smooth a flow of traffic as possible. Our attention applied to such systems, whose do not endanger sabotage the security of humans, but nevertheless as much as possible friction in the flow of traffic to cause - and we would have something found!

    To better understanding small few course customer:

    In the railway company the track distances are divided into individual successive distance paragraph, which are monitored and secured. Only in each case one course may be in a paragraph!

    The security managed over signals and the monitoring runs over electronic signalling equipment (sensors).

    • If a course is in a distance paragraph (we call it A), then the appropriate hauptsignal red shows; that means: Distance paragraph A is filled, no other course may into this paragraph bring in.

      FIG. 1 (comes still..... sometime)

    • To the hauptsignal a pilot signal belongs. It displays the same, like the hauptsignal due to it. (Haupts.=gruen/Vors.=gruen; Haupts.=rot/Vors.=gelb) and is to 0,6 to 1 km before this.

    If a course a yellow occurs pilot signal showing, Zugfuehrer/die course guide must initiate a braking to come the before the red hauptsignal showing to a halt.

    • An electronic determines the current status of a distance paragraph (fill-free) Achs /Radzaehleinrichtung. It is directly at the track and counts, how many wheels (and thus axles) at it by-rush.

    • In the age of the HighTec signals are served naturally not by push of a button from the signal tower, but by electronics. Different protection and control systems are used (whereby the description is limited to those aspects, which are here for us from interest):

      • a) independent streckenblock (block/lock) with this system is manufactured technical circuiting a dependency of the individual protection and control devices among themselves. Example: Course brings in in distance paragraph A; Signal A switches to red = paragraph A is filled; Axle counter A counts 18 axles; Course approaches to distance paragraph B, signal B shows green, course can in paragraph B bring in; Axle counter B counts 18 axles = course is in paragraph B brought in = paragraph A left; A is again free, signal A cut off switches to green; Course approaches paragraph C...
        The basic position of the signals is green . Only if the paragraph concerned is filled, the signal red shows.

      • b) central block with this system is the basic position of the signals red (even if the paragraph concerned is free). If a course paragraph A approaches, by means of an axle counter with the computer of the responsible signal tower " green for signal A " is requested; this checks whether somewhat it opposes that and gives if necessary paragraph A freely (signal A switches to green); with the entry of the course into the paragraph signal switches A to red; Course approaches paragraph B; Inquiry; Check;... By observing the signals humans can determine, after which system the distance is secured. (so e.g. a signal switching to green can indicate to you that immediately thereafter a course will come.)

    • In or if several oh counting devices fail, thereby Elektronik/dem computer information about the distance status is lost. The signals concerned switch first times to red and are only by special instruction to be induced to give this switching status up again. That has the travel the consequence that the respective courses must hold first times before the signal, after consultation with the signal tower responsible for the distance paragraph slowly and with increased watchfulness to continue and only in the next distance paragraph - so far this does not announce problems - the normal travel speed marriages.

    • Usually are the oh counting devices for both mechanisms in the same place. There is a multiplicity of further mechanisms for the protection/monitoring of the trackage. We are limited to two types of oh counting devices, with their function we here made ourselves familiar and their sabotage we tested (fig. 2, 3)

      FIG. 2.3 (comes still... sometime)

    In view of the risk, which a pannekoepfiges, thoughtless Herumfummeln at course-technical mechanisms catastrophic consequences can have, we guess/advise dringendst: Devices, whose regulation/function does not admit exactly is, are taboo!

    In addition e.g. the INDUSO for us (inductive strain-relief counts; Fig. 4), which with security with the search for axle counters will discover you. They are to be differentiated optically easily from these; obvious features are i.e. an even, rectangular surface and its positioning at the track, at the exterior of the rail with some cm " air " between rail and device.

    FIG. 4 (comes still... sometime)

    So, with this little basic knowledge can make you for it on the search for " your " axle counter. Ideal discovery sites are the environment of signals on free distance. With bored view from the compartment window during a course travel now and then signs are noticeable, which you know similarly from motorway departures: Barks, with 1,2 and 3 diagonal beam. They indicate the distance to the pilot signal.

    Thus you (probably) the at the beginning of a distance paragraph sighted. Pays attention to the oberleitungsmasten; they have continuously sequential numbering, facilitate the later finding of the place.

    A stepping out of the course, the way back and crawling by the unterholz we leave blank times and assume, it are with dornenzerkratzten hands and tannennadeln in the hair at the clearing race in the proximity of " your " place. Take something time to you, a good workstation and provides there a feeling for the environment and the traffic conditions looks you up - whereby it is helpful to have clock and timetable. Then the search begins. With the bored view from the window, mentioned above, it must have noticed to you additionally that at the edge of the railway track " boxes " (fig. 5) are with yellow bases (in the GDR often still grey) - so also, where you are now. They mostly sit on short tubing stubs rising up out of the earth.

    FIG. 5 (comes still... sometime)

    Checks, what in the height such box at the track is. As orientation a quite thick line (sturdy tank hose serves; see fig. 2+5), which leads from the box to the track. It flows into a device, which is installed to the rail directly. (that like that, continues your investigation is not with the next box - there several must be.)

    Regard to you the device exactly (however long braking distances have caution when do gymnasticsdoing gymnastics doing gymnastics on the tracks, courses!)

    The two types of oh counting devices, which we present here, are quite easy to identify. They see - draufgeguckt from above - from like trapezoidal steel blocks and are

    • as unique piece at the inside (fig. 3), or
    • as doubles at the interior and exterior the same rail (fig. 2)
    fastened.

    Thus are you at the target of your search!

    Now again turns you to the box, because around it it goes.

    • Boxes, which belong to a " double trapezoid ", are full-plugged with electronics (slide-in printed-circuit board; Fig. 6 + 7) FIG. 6 + 7
    • If the box belongs to a single trapezoid (fig. 5), in a strip is on which the arriving and outgoing cables are connected.

    Which employs it with contents of the respective box, is left to your fantasy, the pallet is enough from cable by pinching (natural with isolated tools) to total loss.

    Still a few thoughts in the end: If the whole is to go beyond a purely symbolic ATS, are both the point in time and the range of the putting out of operation of importance. If it concerns a completely determined course, which is important to you, the point in time should be selected in such a way that the course cannot be rerouted beforehand on another distance.

    To be rerouted it knows also always on the Gegengleis to umfahren the the problem zone - thus: both directions sabotage.

    Additionally applies; massive the failures on a distance, ever, are, the lamely creep the course its target against.

    And us sometime times to ears that the marketing department of the railways puzzles about the cause of a rapidly rising demand for Bahncards, those should come to observe is in the apron of recruit collection dates, pushing away feed with deserters from ex Yugoslavia and refugees at all, peace goods feed, Castor transports and other ekliges more - if occurs, then we make happy enormous and drink ourselves one on it (at least).

  142. Treble Damage by PopeFelix · · Score: 1

    Treble damage is triple damage, or three times Google's damages.

    --

    Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
    Computer Geek by day, religious Icon by night.

  143. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well how many people dies every day in wars, in some other country the the US?

  144. I'll bite... by BlackGriffen · · Score: 2

    So it would be Ok if they changed the page to something like, "In my opinion, it would damage the railway badly if someone were to..."? Violating the spirit of the law but sticking to the letter you say? Well, that's Ok because the German Constitution obviously violates the spirit of free speech whilst maintaining a resemblance to the letter of it.

    Let me spell it out to you: the spirit of free speech is that the government is not permitted to regulate the flow of information. Controlling all information is tyranny just as surely as a Gestapo or some other secret police. It is a far more insidious tyranny, in fact, because it is a hidden tyranny, where the prisoners can injure themselves on the bars because they are not permitted to see them.

    If the government is permitted to regulate the flow of factual information that it does not like, then it will not permit people to inform others about government graft and corruption, etc.

    If you want to discuss pedophiles, remember that pedos are a much smaller problem than a government tyranny (in terms of the number of people it effects). Tyranny control has to be done first, then the pedophiles can be dealt with (laws such as victimizing children, aiding and abetting, etc.).

    BlackGriffen

  145. no verdict yet... by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 2

    Just to clarify: the Deutsche Bahn hasn't won in the case against xs4all yet. A preliminary verdict was issued that forced xs4all to close down the website in question for the time being, but the final ruling won't be available until april 25th. Given that the material is NOT copyrighted by Deutsche Bahn, and is NOT illegal in the Netherlands, I would expect the preliminary verdict to be overturned in favor of xs4all.

  146. They want to block the radikal pages at the provid by alvar-f · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hi,

    today I had a phone talk with Christian Schreyer, the legal advisor of Deutsche Bahn.

    Deutsche Bahn will sue all, who create a mirror of this pages; if it's not possible sue them (e.g. free speech laws in the US or whatelse), they want to block the pages at the german access providers: There is a filter system in development, which will be able to block all unwanted URLs.
    The stalking-horse to establish these filter system (called "Filterpilot"), which uses a combination of routing and transparent proxying, are nazi websites. Denying holocaust is illegal in germany and there is a wide front against nazis; they use this to establish filterpilot at all border gateways.

    The district government of Düsseldorf, which is the outrider in the case of net censorship in germany, sais: "If we want to prohibit milk drinking, we have first test this with two milk bottles."

    It is naive to think, that "Filterpilot" will remain in Germany. It's a commercial development and not only in germany there are lot if interested organisations in such a filter: remember MPAA, IPFI, Scientology, ...

    At ODEM we have a petition against provider side filter systems. Please support us and sign the Declaration for freedom of information in the internet.


  147. Bold, stupid claims. by 3am · · Score: 2

    By your logic the Allies in WWII were in the wrong for giving information on sabotage tactics to the French resistance. So much for supporting freedom fighters in tyranical nations.

    This is a deeply flawed, naive response. First, France was occupied by a hostile power. This is a German group 'resisting' a democratically elected German government. They are not disenfranchised or repressed, but rather lazy and/or malicious. The could affect changes in German nuclear energy policy through political means, but choose not to. Second, French freedom fighters did not intentionally target and endanger German civilians. They sabotaged military targets. This group recklessly endangers civilian targets, which is disgusting.

    This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.

    Another bold claim with nothing to back it up. Please explain to me in a moderately logical way how the American revolution relates to the current 'war on terror' and this anti-nuclear group.

    The US's current military action against these militant Islamic groups began when we were attacked. Al Queda hates the US - their main goal is the killing of 'infidels'. They attacked 2 African embassies, the USS Cole, and the WTC. On the other hand, the American revolution's goals were stated in the Declaration of Independence which was sent to the British monarchy. We reached our goals through military conflict, not by attacking non-combatants. The comparison between the rebelling colonies and the German group is even worse. The colonies fought because they did not recieve Parlimentary representation - the German group has that at it's fingertips.

    --

    A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    1. Re:Bold, stupid claims. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the analogy was a bit flawed but not too far overboard. A better anology would be that US was in the position of the palestenians. We were being "occupied" by the british just like the palestenians are. We cried "Give me liberty or give me death" just like they do. We fought to drive off our colonial masters and succeeded with some help from the french. If the french were to help the british (like the US helps Israel) then we would be screwed like the palestenians are.

      As for not attacking civilians I think you ought to re-read your history especially considering native americans. Our genocidal campaign against the indians was even more severe then the ethnic cleansing going on in palestine (in the name of fighting terrorism of course).

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    2. Re:Bold, stupid claims. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me in a moderately logical way how the American revolution relates to the current 'war on terror''

      I can't see how it does. The U.S. 'war on terror' makes about as much sense, and will probably be as effective as, the oh-so-successful 'war on drugs'.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    3. Re:Bold, stupid claims. by 3am · · Score: 1

      Whatever, I totally disagree with you.

      But this is completely offtopic now, so I will only say that I think the idea that 'ethnic cleansing' is going on in the Gaza Strip & West bank is too stupid to reply to. But it's funny how this mis-named 'ethnic cleansing' (ie, any form of attack on Palestinians) only occurs after a couple of hundred Israeli's are killed by suicide bombers working at the command of Arafat...

      I said nothing about the US's extermination of Native Americans, and I have no idea why you brought it up.

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    4. Re:Bold, stupid claims. by Rand+Race · · Score: 1

      First of all, the claim I am responding to is general, not specific. Secondly, go read a history book or two before calling me naive. Your purile ideas on the 'niceness' of the American revolution and French Maquis are elementry school level pap at best.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    5. Re:Bold, stupid claims. by 3am · · Score: 1

      No, I think I'll stand by my claims.

      If you have something better to add that will illuminate me, then post links or shut up.

      And if you can show me something which credibly states that American revolutionaries or French saboteurs used teenagers in suicide attacks aimed at pizza stores, dance clubs, religious gatherings, and bus depots, then I'll be very surprised.

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    6. Re:Bold, stupid claims. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      The ratio of dead palestenians to dead israelis is something like 10 to 1. The israelis have nothing to complain about when they are killing ten times as many palestenians. Add to that the number of wounded, the number of jailed, the number of tortured palestenians and the your whining about dead israelis sounds even more ridiculus.

      No matter how you spin it the facts remain. The palestenians are occupied people, they are routinely killed, captured, and tortured. They have no real rights in their own towns and cities. A palestenian can not move from one of his own town to the other without permission for example.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  148. Re:*sigh* .. not the wrong "Fire" in theater argum by RedSynapse · · Score: 1
    I believe the argument on that site is the fallacious one. In my understanding it argues that yelling "Fire" in a theatre is wrong only because it violates the implicit contractual agreement one enters into by buying a theatre ticket; that is, you will shut up and watch the movie and not disrupt other's ability to do so. But when I imagine what could happen if someone actualy yelled fire in a crowded theatre I think of people running for their lives and people possibly being trampled. I think of fire trucks being dispatched and possibly being unable to respond to other real fires and the loss of life and property that may result because of that. In sum, yelling fire is not illegal because it violates implied acceptable behaviour but because it is likely to result in severe harm to others.

    I think there's another cliché that is applicable here and it is "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Here's another example where there's no implied contract. Imagine I run out onto the street holding a syringe full of poison and say to someone "The city has just been sprayed with Anthrax, here inject yourself with this antidote!" the person does and promptly dies. Would it be acceptable to claim that I had just been exercising my right to free speech? After all I can say whatever I want and no speech should be made illegal. Obviously in this case my speech has resulted in actions that have severely harmed others and as such it should be illegal.

    I personally think that there are many laws that construe what should be restricted in an overbroad way in many countries but I do believe that a strong case can be made for disallowing certain expressions that will cause severe harm to others.

  149. Excuse me? by vmalloc_ · · Score: 1

    Wait, I'm sorry, we're talking about an article that describes sabotaging a train station?

    You're kidding me, right? They think that taking that off the search engines is going to stop people from breaking down trains? Hell, I haven't even read it yet, and i've immediately got about 5 ideas. Why not lace some plastic explosives on the track? Dump some concerete into the subway tracks... How hard is it to break down a train, for godsakes?

  150. This stuff and terrorism by Otto+Normal · · Score: 1

    Everybody should be aware of how disastrous attacks on modern railways can be: on the 3rd of July 1998 a high speed train of DB derailed at 200 KM/H because of a technical defect, killing 101 people and wounding 108. This is comparable to an aircraft crash. Considering that nowadays speeds of 200 to 300 KM/H aren't uncommon, I bet some Al Quaida nut head is already studying the possibility of a terrorist attack on such a train.

    Do you have any understanding for people telling how to replicate 9/11? I don't.

    1. Re:This stuff and terrorism by alvar-f · · Score: 1

      The banned document descibes how to stop a train without any damage to it and harm the passengers. It's not about crashing trains. The signal for the train get red and it have to stop. Thats it.

      It's primary purpose is to stop trains with nuclear junk.

  151. I'll take that bet by epepke · · Score: 2

    Yeah, just like they learned to wear headdresses from old Tarzan movies.

  152. High quality archived version of site by yppiz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a much more useful archive of the site than Google's:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020208065004/http:/ /w ww.xs4all.nl/~tank/radikal/

    The Internet Archive also has past versions:

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.xs4all.n l/ ~tank/radikal/

    The main page for the Internet Archive's multi-year web collection is web.archive.org

    --Pat /zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

  153. Freenet by shatfield · · Score: 1

    This is a 'case in point' for the freenet project.

    This case boils down to 1 thing:
    'Someone' said something that 'someone else' takes offense at, and that 'someone else' is going to oppress the freedom of speech of 'someone', at any expense.

    When Freenet fulfills its promise, this stuff won't even be possible, so the "someone else" will just have to suck it up.

    --
    "To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
  154. But UK railways inspire IT innovation! by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    We have highly advanced bright LED monitor systems, coupled with CRT monitors which seemingly use advanced neural networks and dead-reckoning technology to work out how late each train is expected to be!

    The investment continues, with automatic announcements carefully graded according to how late each train is, for example "I am" "sorry for the" "delay" becomes "I am" "deeply" "sorry for the" "severe" "delay" depending on how long the expected delay is! The system effortlessly handles times like 23 hours 38 minutes (I wonder if that was a date miscalculation ;-)

    Lesser advanced societies like Germany make do with merely printing timetables on posters, and letting the trains run according to those - where is the suspense? The drama? In Italy they have even been known to paint the timetables onto the walls. How can you start a conversation if even simple things like the trains keep to some artificial timetable?

    1. Re:But UK railways inspire IT innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How can you start a conversation if even simple things like the trains keep to some artificial timetable?

      Well, one could alway try the weather. The rain in Staines stays mainly on the trains...

      Cheers,
      Ian

  155. Re:Number 1 reason America is a great place to liv by BluSkreen · · Score: 1

    May I point out that it was a US law (the DMCA) that was used by Scientology recently to get pages pulled out of Googles index?
    In that case the "Church" held a copyright on the work in question. I don't think DB has a copyright on railroad destruction materials....

  156. Ignoring the This country vs. That Country wars... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing that seems to keep getting missed in all of this, is that Google has offices in Germany, conducts business in Germany, and should therefore make sure that they don't violate the laws in Germany. Seriously, if you are going to have a presence in a country, you shouldn't go flaunting their laws, just because its legal in your home country.
    By way of disclosure, I am an American, and the thought of this sort of limitation on what Google can link to is distasteful to me; however Google has offices in Germany, and Germany has laws preventing this sort of thing. So, if a German court decides that Google was wrong in what they did, Google should suffer the consequences. End of Story. If you don't like the laws of a country, don't set up operations there, its that simple. I would expect US based companies to follow German laws, if they have a presence there, and I would expect German companies to follow US laws if they have a presence here(Russian companies too!). The only time I would expect a company to be exempt from a law, is if they don't have a physical presence. As such, I could post a copy of the offending article, and be relativly safe, as long as I stay out of Germany. And a German national could crack the CD protections of the RIAA, and be realtively safe, as long as they stay out of the US. Its either that, or a lot of people need to start preparing a hell of a legal defence for violating Shira law by viewing porn.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  157. within 24 hours... by xjnfx · · Score: 2

    i will have my mirror of it up within a week i should have an english translation at one point in time, our american forefathers trew tea into the harbor as an act of protest...that too was illegal and no it has already been requested that i do not host this on my main site.

  158. Terrorism by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

    My German is not that good, googles German is better, but not good enough. From what I can tell the XS4ALL contained documents on how to gain access to something on rails, perhaps a train, for the purpose of ??derailing?? it? Well.. did anyone else read these documents and figure out what XS4ALL was *really* trying to promote... From what I can tell also XS4ALL is also aligned with some euro-leftists. Euro-leftists like to smoke weed. People who smoke week have to buy it from someone. Someone supports terrorism. So this just isnt good. I'm going to write Dub'ya have these weed-smoking-train-derailing-uberites blown to hell.

  159. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really think posting as an Anonymous Coward will give you protection? Have you heard of the Patriot Act?

    Your message is worded in a way that gives the impression that you intend to commit these or other terrorist acts that you have here described.

    Are you admitting in public that you are a terrorist?

    Please clarify.

  160. Here is a link where a copy of the site can be fou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ecn.org/radikal/

  161. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by ObeyTheWerejackal · · Score: 0

    The AC derides someone for posting as an AC. Niiiice.

  162. Link to mirror site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a link - look around the site, they have a copy of the edition in question up...

    http://www.ecn.org/radikal/

  163. duh by lemonk · · Score: 1

    Might as well sue the wayback machine too while you're at it.

    --
    You are only popular on the Internet.
  164. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, you got me. I was actually the 21st terriorist,
    but because I am a white male, nobody ever writes about me
    and the government does not persue me as I am too white.

    Seriously though, I find it interesting that so many ppl believe that our (american) actions are actually making life more secure. Israel has spent billions and has undergone far more in terms of security measure and still ppl die.
    I simply mentioned just a few ways to attack. There are far more that I can think of.

    The current Anthrax attack is almost laughable for the fact that it is an american group (not an individual) and that our feds are lieing to us. This (and the OK attack) shows that that we have to fear what happens from within.

  165. You just don't get it. by poemofatic · · Score: 2



    This isn't a question of proving that the information on the site has a "legal" use. This is about the right to think and speak whatever you want, as long as that act of speech, in and of itself, does not hurt anyone else. Yes there are caveats for defamation, etc. But the point is that thought is difficult without speech, and if I want to fantasize, or discuss, the best way to blow up a railroad, then I -- as an autonomous person -- should have the right to do so. It's about privacy, about getting the thought police and speech police out of our lives, and letting people express themeselves.

    A better way to fight crime is to, god forbid, do good police work, while also tackling whatever underlying issues may contribute. But forbidding people from talking about crime is not a legitimate way of fighting it. Banning racial epithets does not decrease racism. Actually bringing these things out in the open, and allowing people to discuss what is on their minds is a much more effective way of fighting crime, while also preserving our freedom to voice unpopular opinions.

    --

    When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

  166. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, why am I defending myself? Am I really so kooky?

  167. follow the chain of logic though... by MemeRot · · Score: 2

    if the constitution is a bad one, isn't the correct response to say "the constitution failed to protect the freespeech, there are too many limitation of art. 5, therefore the constitution is a bad one - so we should get a bunch of guns, overthrow the government, and institute a better one?"

    now actually doing that i can see being illegal. but saying that you should do it? seems that if you can't say that, then you're being censored clear as day in direct contradiction to the 'no censorship' clause.

  168. They're back! They're back!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's the return of the Nazis!

    The return of the Nazis!

    Everybody beware the Cache Nazis!!!

    AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  169. Re:Yeah, 3000 dead civilians is +5, Funny by ObeyTheWerejackal · · Score: 0

    When do I get my -1!??!?!??!

  170. 10 second search on Google by Rand+Race · · Score: 1
    From this link: When the war was over, the Loyalists found that their property had been either confiscated or destroyed by the triumphant revolutionists and that many of them were banished under penalty of death. A great number of Loyalists were also tortured and publicly humiliated.


    And from here (the very first return from the search "French maquis terror"): In my wartime youth a member of French Maquis who threw a bomb into a café killing a few German officers and a number of innocent drinkers was a hero of the resistance.


    Both comments support my contention, if not exactly your straw man 'suicide bombers' contention.

    --
    Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
  171. When I watched Amelie by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    someone threw fireworks into the cinema (which went off! They (later) canceled the showing). But no-one shouted "Fire!"; the closest people just ran silently. Is it because that is always being used as an example of a thing not to do? So even when it is legitimate to say it, and warn other people, no-one does it? :-/