Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Judge Cracks Down on Hyperlinks
The webzine Radikal (mirrored in Holland, because it has been banned in Germany) published several articles on disabling railroad trains (in the context of preventing shipments of nuclear materials); the German national railroad discovered it, and the fun has been going on ever since. Rejo Zenger writes "Today a dutch judge ordered Indymedia NL on the request of the Deutsche Bahn to remove some links from a page on their website. These links were pointing to the mirrors of Radikal sites. A few of these sites were containing two articles that have been forbidden in court before. The links were indirect links (surface links) instead of direct ones to the articles (deeplinks). So, none of the links was pointing to the offending articles directly! The judge "orders Indymedia immediately after receiving this sentence to remove and to keep removed the hyperlinks, which are placed on (a) website(s) under the control of Indymedia, if those hyperlinks lead directly or indirectly to the Radikal articles [...]". This is BAD. As almost all links indirectly point to the Radikal articles we can abolish the web now. The announcement, Dutch with English to follow shortly. The decision of the judge (dutch only)." Indymedia's press release (English) covers it pretty well. Update: 06/21 19:54 GMT by M : My summary in the first sentence has been corrected.
Better drop that link to Google then.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
The Deutsche Bashn is the german railroad. Radikal is a german newsletter. Only the website is dutch...
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were forbidden in the Netherlands.
But how many "degrees of separation" (consectuive link-jumps) are needed until the linking is permissible. Six?
Though I'm not in the Netherlands, I cannot see how this can be logical. One might be able to extend this ruling ad infinitum.
I am the evil aardvark!
Dutch != German!
The Radikal magazine is german, DB (Deutche Bahn) is german, but the articles where published on a Dutch site (Indymedia.nl). So please get your facts strait!
Does putting a URL without making it a link (so that it has to be cut and pasted) count as linking? It's splitting hairs, but it's just conveying info that way, not linking...
A few points.
1) The linked to articals where about derailing Nuclea Waste Trains, not passenger trains
2) Would you rather have ppl discusing how to do this with out killing any one, or just let the carnage begin
3) The links where to the main page of the site, not the artical. So this now means that in the Netherlands you can not link to anywhere that may link to these articals. I hope Google.nl is watching
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
Wow.. I have never seen a stream of thought that starts at "derail passenger trains" and ends at "destroy a woman's mink coat."
The fact is, free speech has to be protected in all but the most extreme of cases..or not at all.
Your chain of thought that I mentioned above is a great example as to why. Do we regulate all speech that could have harmful effects for others? Or does somebody have to choose which type of ill-effects are regulated and which are not? After all cooking meth can certainly lead to some fantastic explosions, which could set your neighbors house on fire. That has ill effects.. just like selling meth does. Why shouldn't that be regulated?
And driving fast can lead to crashes.. so should any speech about how to make your car go faster be banned as well?
Even this case has an interesting free speech question. After all, the dutch magazine was using its speech about derailing trains for a "good cause" as it was dealing with the shipment of nuclear materials. Why shouldn't this be protected?
The fact is, speech is incredibly difficult to regulate and to pick and choose what can and can't be regulated is very difficult. THis is why our courts in the US have always been so reluctant to limit speech in all but the most prudent of ways (the whole yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place is one example).
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Maybe it is good to have understand the whole story from the beginning ...
...
l )
... .. money is an issue ..
It starts way back in 1997 when the German magazine places some of their issues online at a dutch ISP (XS4ALL). In these issues they describe how to derail german trains.
A German Court rules that these documents are illegal and these publications are illegal in Germany. German ISP are orderded to block the URL to XS4ALL. Because blocking something on the internet is virtually impossible these blocks were lifted because a lot of people started to publish mirrors of these documents.
Back to April this year
The German Railroads suddenly notice that these documents are still online and available and through a (dutch) court order forces XS4ALL to take these pages down.
XS4ALL is applealing this decision and they are still in court (you can check the XS4ALL pages at http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/radikal.htm
At the same time Indymedia plublishes a list with mirrors where these documents can be found
and that is now illegal to. They want to appleal, but as always
I hope this helps.
Rigolo
The ruling states that, although the links themselves were indirect, they were accompanied by detailed instructions on how to locate the pages in question. It was this combination which the judge ruled illegal, not the actual link per se.
This aspect should go down well with the Code=Speech crowd: source code (in this case a direct link) is essentially the same as a description/poem/diagram describing same.
Free speech is a privilege, not a right, and it should be used responsibly - not to hurt people.
In the United States of America Free Speech IS a RIGHT... check out the constitution.
...otherwise it's trivial to circumvent the prohibition on direct links only.
For instance, suppose linking directly to document A is banned. Then the hosting site could simply create a page with a "wink wink" link to document A, and the site against which the injunction is placed could link the the page with the "wink wink" link, with identical intent as with a direct link.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for a ban to also include indirect links OF WHATEVER LENGTH (arbitrary numbers of pages of "Are you sure? Are you really sure? etc") so long as intent is clear (e.g. putting up silly links to Disney on each of the "are you sure" pages should not absolve them). One can even make a case for neglect if the linker should have known better according to a reasonable-person standard.
Of course, even if the ruling notes this justification -- I don't read Dutch, and I'm leery of trusting a web translator on legalese -- Indymedia isn't exactly an independent with regards to their own case, and probably wouldn't mention this.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The verdict mentions the sites as well and should therefore be illegal!
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Sorry, but I want to defend the judge a bit. For some stupid reason, this information has been ordered to remain secret. Just like Americans would hide information on their president's plane from terrorists. The judge didn't say anything about hyperlinks in general, he only spoke about Indymedia's intent. Even if it wasn't a link but a Javascript-generated rot13ed copy sung as a MP3 but clearly marked as illegal, it should be judged that way. Case by case, without generalizations. Free speech is an important right. But that's what we have judges for. (As much as I hate them, and yes, I'm Dutch.)
It's easy to be for free speech, if you like the someone else is saying. It's requires some courage to support free speech that you disagree with.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Underneath all of this is a silly premise. Does anyone need instructions to figure out how to derail a train? Let's see, it runs on two rails which are attached to ties in a certain way. So you either move a rail, or undermine the roadbed, or foobar a track junction or switch, or put something on top of a rail that's big and strong enough to send the wheels off. If the German government is counting on keeping trains secure by not having instructions up on the Net, they must estimate that the people who'd derail them are unusually stupid - and yet they expect they'll know how to read?? Reminds me of an article in yesterday's NY Times about how the Germans are following around a guy they know financed Mohammed Atta, but won't arrest him because they have such a respect for individual rights there. Maybe Germans really are stupid enough to need a manual to figure out how to derail a train?? If you live in Germany, feel very secure.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Of course, there's a lot of people who claim that information like this should not be released because of the damage it can cause. Yes, I agree. The people erleasing the information should have better judgement; BUT the people should not be arrested either.
Let me explain:
There's also a lot of people who claim guns should be illegal; I beg to differ (and this is an easier analogy).
Criminals will get guns regardless of whether they're legal or not. Most criminals don't even get guns legitimately; they're usually stolen from gun shops, other people, or bought from gun shows, where they don't have to follow the 7-day laws. Either way, they're acquired through the black market. Criminals (or at least intelligent criminals) don't just go out and buy assault rifles, because they know they can be traced.
If guns were criminalized, all it'll do is prevent legitimate owners from purchasing them for self defense. Now our problem is the personality of this country (the states) where crime runs rampant, the punishment doesn't make sense (I'd get more time for trafficking weed than killing someone), so people don't really have a reason to act responsibly.
In effect, if someone really wants to derail a train, they -will- find out; however, people who know should show enough responsibility to not tell everybody, as it can easily become some twisted game for a bunch of teenagers. As they've obviously shown, they don't have that responsibility, and of course, the government wants to punish them.
What it comes down to is we need to reevaluate our moral responsibilites, and keep the government out of it...
I dunno, I think I'm just rambling now, but it sense (to me) at one point....
Thats the problem. The inevitable compromise. A compromise about an issue that should never been an issue.
Granted the subject matter involved is spooky, and I really dont want anyone monkeying with any train with a nuclear payload, but still.
We're back to ANOTHER linking issue! WTF? Did the New York Times ever go down for doing the same exact thing as 2600?
The principle issue at hand is the general ignorance (about the net and how it works) of those who create, enforce, and rule on the laws.
There are a great number of people with a decent level of understanding about the internet, and sufficient common sense to know what just is a Very Bad Idea(TM). But basically none of them are in lawmaking bodies around the world. They aren't greatly organized, they don't have a powerful lobby, they don't pack the monsterous cash warchests that the corps have. So what happens?
You get:
1)Trigger situation - someone does something somewhere related to computers or the net that some other body disapproves of, legal or otherwise.
2)Very Bad Law - disapproving body (often big corp) goes after (paid for or otherwise) new law that is so over the top that it looks completely loony to anyone who understands the technologies involved.
3)Uproar - you and I and everyone else wets themself laughing then realizes that there could be very bad consequences.
4)Sacrifical Lamb - some poor bastard (usually the poor soul from item 1) is hung out to dry while courts and lawmakers argue point they likely don't understand, insert paid experts from all sides. And lawyers, lots of lawyers.
5)Bad Law - eventually everything settles down and Very Bad Law goes away, but Bad Law is put in its place. Compromise isn't always a good thing.
Most Bad Laws regarding technology that we have now are actually the sons of Very Bad Laws.
No, not correct:
When trying the search for "kleiner leitfaden" (which is German for "handy guide") in Google Groups you will go to here , then choose the third message and look at the Complete Thread. You will go to here , than scroll up and you'll see one of the forbidden articles.
Then, try the same "kleiner leitfaden" in Google WWW. You will go to here. . The seventh link is pointing to here and again you will have the article in front of you.
Then, enter the title of the forbidden Indymedia site in Google WWW. The first link, try the Cache: here
Enough said.
notice how Slashdot didn't link to this Zine, either.
(Let alone deep linkin)
- undoware.ca
"i do have a problem with idiotically dangerous speech...i think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should be illegal, which it is, "
The phrase you need here is: "clear and present danger". It's the phrase the Supreme Court of the United States came up with to describe one of only a couple of limits on 'free speech'. The other would, of course, be slander. Slander is obviously irrelevant to this discussion, so let's briefly look at the first idea. Clear and present danger describes a situation where your speech directly causes an atmosphere of immediate harm to others. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre directly changes the environment from a safe, friendly atmosphere to a chaotic rush in which virtually everyone in the theatre could be injured or killed. The same situation exists for a person who declares they have a bomb on a bus or plane. Such speech can cause panic within the cabin, or perhaps cause the plane or bus to crash, possibly killing everyone on board.
If I had a website that said it's funny to yell 'bomb' while on a bus, or to yell 'fire' in a theatre, it's very doubtful the site would ever run into any trouble with the law. Why? Because there's no clear and present danger stemming from the existance of that site. If someone read my website, and then made the decision to go yell 'fire' in a theatre, they would be arrested, as their words caused the danger, not mine. This website is abouta bit more serious situation, yet the principle remains the same. If the website's existance caused people to be injured or to die directly and immediately, I would say it's illegal and needs to go. However, to this day, I do not believe I have ever heard of a "website-related death". If you wanted to make such a case, try going after the people who make spam ads that flash alot, and make the case of possible harm to epileptics. THAT would be an example of a website fitting the 'clear and present danger' formula; the website itself causes a situation where injury or death is likely. 100,000 people can view a website about de-railing trains and go "hmm, that's interesting" with no direct or indirect consequences. The website is not your problem, the guy de-railing the train is the problem. The person who reads the website and then commits the illegal act is the problem, not the knowledge itself. Lots of people have the knowledge to de-rail a train, yet the vast majority choose not to. Why? They know it's wrong to do so.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Now, should such content be published and widely accessible? If the article is bogus and does not describe a real threat, it doesn't matter. Now, let's say that the article described techniques that actually work. It was published, what, five years ago? If it still poses a threat, we have to conclude that this kind of transport just cannot be made safe, in which case it shouldn't be carried out. If a bunch of adolescents can describe this in a low-quality rag, real terrorists can certainly figure it out as well. Whichever way you look at it, the article should not pose a threat to actual nuclear transport or rail travel.
This just goes to show again that security through obscurity is as stupid when it comes to physical security as when it comes to computer security. Sadly, much of our government spooks are living by that principle, and we all pay the price, both in loss of civil liberties and loss of life.