German Wikipedia Threatened w/ Injunction

TheEagleCD writes "Wikipedia.de, the German version of the popular Wikipedia Encyclopedia, is currently closed due to a German court order. A detailed account of the current controversy [en.wikipedia.org] is available, the short version is that the family of "Tron" (Boris Floricic) - a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry." As I write this the site is back up, as is the tron entry that caused the whole mess. However it does appear that the entire domain was briefly shut down over one entry.

Comments

zee germans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Baba boey baba boey, Howard Sterns penis!

Verschlüsselungstechnik

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, What?

Re:Verschlüsselungstechnik

[Anonymous Coward]

As the late and great Frank Zappa said:

Don't fool yerself, girl
It's goin' right up yer poop chute

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along...

[Eightyford]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

For a second there I thought they had gotten to Slashdot too. But seriously, does anyone know how to download and make a copy of wikipedia? I have a severely underused hosting account that I wouldn't mind using as a mirror for everyone's favorite free encyclopedia.

Not the first site that's buckled from a C&D

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking your way /.

Actually,

[Captain Perspicuous]

the german wikipedia (which is under Jimmy's control) was never down, only the site www.wikipedia.de (under control of a german club), which normally redirected to the former, and is still down now. So, everybody who remembers the "real" wikipedia address can still use wikipedia without any problems.

Re:Actually,

[Captain Perspicuous]

Just wanted to add this: It's pretty easy to block a server quickly in many countries with a provisional injunction (at least it's easy in most european countries). But as soon as such an injunction has to cross a national border, it becomes much more tricky. So the distributed nature of the internet has made it easier to keep information out there (or more difficult to stop info, whatever is your view point), and this principle is what we can see at work here.

Hurray for US free speech rights, now automatically exported to every other nation on the planet*.
(*exceptions apply for walled China, Saudi Arabia and Tunesia...)

Re:Actually,

[FooAtWFU]

A few clarifications for the pedant in all of us: First, Wikipedia is under control of the Wikimedia Foundation these days, not just Jimmy Wales; second, the "German club" in question is actually the German chapter of the Wikimedia foundation and not just some totally random club. And yes- wikipedia.de remains down even as de.wikipedia.org remains up.

Re:Actually,

[petermgreen]

First, Wikipedia is under control of the Wikimedia Foundation [wikimedia.org] these days, not just Jimmy Wales
i was under the impression that he had stacked the board by placing two members who were appointed by himself and had nothing else to do with wikipedia. (its a 5 member board iirc)

in other words if he wants to force a descision though the wikimedia board he can.

Re:Actually,

[Jamesday]

He's also the employer of one of the other members of the board.

Re:Actually,

[Hast]

Hurray for US free speech rights

I think you have slightly mis-informed view of the world. Most western countries have the same rights to free speech (you guys did import it from the French after all). The same story could have taken place in the states, although in that case someone would probably have been sued an astronomical amount of money as well. ;-)

If anything I say hurray for the Internet. Jay for putting bureaucracy in way of lawyers!

Re:Actually,

[dual_boot_brain]

uhhh... import it from the French? Do you mean some of the founding fathers read some of the French philosophers? That would be correct. However, if you are insinuating that the founding fathers imported the text of some french document you are mistaken. The US Bill of Rights was completed in 1787; the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" was not completed until 1789.

Re:Actually,

[Hast]

My point is that many Americans seem to believe that the US invented free speech. (Like the person I replied to.) My point is that the founders of the US wisely took ideas from several of the best philosophers of their days. They also took ideas from the British Bill of Rights released (hah) about a hundred years earlier.

To reiterate: the ideas of freedom of speech and such were really the first implementation of already existing ideas. I doubt other countries would follow so quickly unless the ideas were already quite well rooted.

Re:Actually,

[jbolden]

You are dead wrong on this one. It is almost impossible to get this kind of injunction in the US. Wikipedia has news / political content it just wouldn't happen. Lets give credit where credit is due. Free speech rights in the US are much greater than in European countries.

But why?

[Life700MB]

It was a great movie! Why would they not listed in the credits???

... Hacker? What do you... doh!


--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

MCP

[Anonymous Coward]

"A detailed account of the current controversy [en.wikipedia.org] is available, the short version is that the family of "Tron" (Boris Floricic) - a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry.""

MCP is trying to delete another program.

Babelfish Translation LInk

[FathomIT]

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.or g%2Fwiki%2FTron_(Hacker)

Re:Babelfish Translation LInk

[Stoopid-Guy0]

Thanks for the link! Here's one i found on the side of your translated page.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=en_en&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia. org%2Fwiki%2FTron_%2528hacker%2529

Re:Babelfish Translation LInk

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep imagining buffalo bill from the silence of the lambs reading this translation outloud...

"It rubs the lotion on it's skin, or else it get's the hose again"

Re:Babelfish Translation LInk

[RandomPrecision]

I figure it will already be posted, but you probably could just read the English version. I didn't detect many differences between the untranslated German and the English versions, with the exception that the English version has a new section for the controversy. Otherwise, it just seems that one is paraphrasing the other. It's a clearer read too - no 'erhaengt' or 'on the left of'.

Re:Babelfish Translation LInk

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go to the wikipedia english page and search for tron you get a much more readable version than babelfish

Here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker)

Just hot air

[arvindn]

Wikipedia is (mostly) hosted in the US. The German court does not have jurisdiction. End of story. They can do whatever they want to the wikipedia.de domain, but de.wikipedia.org as well as the actual content is totally unaffected.

Re:Just hot air

[slavemowgli]

The Wikimedia foundation has a German chapter, though. I'm not sure whether that really means much - and it probably very much depends on exactly what kind of influence / authority this chapter has -, but it's not like Wikipedia's just a US website entire unconnected (legally) to Germany, either.

Re:Just hot air

[hweimer]

Wikipedia is (mostly) hosted in the US. The German court does not have jurisdiction. End of story. They can do whatever they want to the wikipedia.de domain, but de.wikipedia.org as well as the actual content is totally unaffected.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If Jimbo decides to ignore this issue, Wikimedia Germany might face paying fines and damages since the original offender is out of reach. German law has some provisions allowing this and they are enforced quite often, especially when dealing with links to sites in another jurisdiction.

Re:Just hot air

[Jamesday]

So the German chapter loses all of its assets over the content of the German language (note German) Wikipedia. That's fine. Beats giving the German or Swiss or other courts control of all German language content.

Re:Just hot air

[mysidia]

The content belongs to the editors who created it, not the Wikimedia foundation, and has already been licensed under the GFDL anyways by virtue of having been posted.

They may have holdings to lose, like server equipment, but the actual content's already tied up.

Re:Just hot air

[Jamesday]

Exactly right. Content can be moved, though it's not yet as easy as it should be because the full master copy is not fully and independently mirrored on equipment with different owners.

At present, no mirror has all of the author / copyright holder details like password hashes and email addresses which would be needed for a really smooth transition to different servers. These things are not part of any public database dump, for obvious security reasons.

Re:Just hot air

[idlake]

They do have jurisdiction over German domain addresses, as well as connectivity between the US and Germany. They can and they will do whatever it takes to enforce German law. They could, for example, fine subsidiaries of network providers unless they start filtering.

I think they are wrong in this case, but don't live under any illusion that they can't get their way.

Besides, US courts are much more aggressive in enforcing their rights overseas; in addition to fining or shutting down foreign companies, they will actually send US police to "help" foreign nations enforce US laws.

Re:Just hot air

[linuxrocks123]

"They do have jurisdiction over German domain addresses, as well as connectivity between the US and Germany. They can and they will do whatever it takes to enforce German law. They could, for example, fine subsidiaries of network providers unless they start filtering.

I think they are wrong in this case, but don't live under any illusion that they can't get their way."

So, what, you actually think Internet filtering is effective? I recent read an article detailing how even the Great Firewall of China doesn't stop dissidents from spreading information to Chinese citizens over the Internet. It might even have been here; I don't remember. Do you seriously think Germany (a democracy, let's remember) is going to build a nationwide firewall around their entire network infrastructure to stop people FROM SAYING TRON'S REAL NAME?!?

A somewhat less silly approach for Germany would be to attempt to force the German Wikipedia to close. They can't do this either, though, because Germany doesn't have any jurisdiction over the content of a U.S. website that has no relation to Germany except that it's in German. Even if Germany thinks they do under German law, it doesn't matter unless they convince a U.S. court that they have jurisdiction under U.S. law as well. This would be necessary because, the Wikipedia servers are, you know, in the U.S., so German police can't physically walk in and shut them down. They need to get the U.S. to do that, and the U.S. won't do this based on a German court judgement unless a U.S. court renders a judgement that Germany has jurisdiction over the German Wikipedia. U.S. law requires "minimum contacts" for jurisdiction, and it's been decided that a website merely accessible from the territory doesn't cut it.

So, given this, exactly how will Germany "get their way"?

Re:Just hot air

[Doctor O]

Actually German law doesn't give a shit about the license, as far as legal action is concerned. If someone sues the German Wikipedia Foundation because of the contents of Wikipedia, it WILL go to court, because the content IS on the site for which the German Wikipedia Foundation is the admin-c.

Of course they can then try to use the GFDL or whatever is used as a defense, but whether that will be successful is a completely different story. Germany has a pretty sad record on Internet-related trials.

Please note that I don't defend it - hell, I've been burnt by it as well. But Germany isn't the US. If you have links or content on your site someone sues you for, you're most probably in for some HUGE cock in your ass. And yes, that's *really* even for links. Ask Stefan Münz, he's got some nice tales to tell about that.

Re:Just hot air

[Squirrelgirl]

I believed the injunction was part of the legal proceedings? At most wikipedia would probably be asked to remove the offensive content (and that's another topic), not close down the site in question for ever.

Re:Just hot air

[Sithgunner]

Im just a trespasser, but why dont you start thinking to solve the radical point, and not like just because his fist won't reach me I laugh at you?

Re:Just hot air

[AxelBoldt]

So, given this, exactly how will Germany "get their way"?

Well, if Jimbo doesn't fight the order and doesn't comply with it, and he travels to the European Union, he could risk a fine or arrest.

Re:Just hot air

[linuxrocks123]

I don't know about German law, but the United States generally doesn't believe they have jurisdiction about what people do in other countries. For example, if a 19 year old goes to France, drinks, then comes back to the U.S. and tells everyone how drunk he got, he can't be arrested for his behavior in France, even though drinking under the age of 21 is illegal here. Why do you believe Germany thinks its laws apply to everyone in the world? That seems to me a rather strange position for a country to take.

Re:Just hot air

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wikipedia is (mostly) hosted in the US. The German court does not have jurisdiction. End of story."

However, Wikipedia is hosted in Florida. And from what I've heard about the US courts, that seems worrying to anyone who depends on it.

Re:Just hot air

[AxelBoldt]

Why do you believe Germany thinks its laws apply to everyone in the world?

It's a civil matter. Even in the US you can sue somebody who sits in a different country in civil court. Swiss banks were sued by holocaust survivers in New York courts for example. If the defendent doesn't show up for the trial, you get a default judgement. Enforcing that judgement is difficult however. There's really not much difference between the German and the US system here, except that US courts are generally much more open to such international cases.

Re:Just hot air

[zoloto]

So if there is revealing information about yourself on a particularly popular website and you want it removed you're SOL all because of a license? I don't know about you but information about me is my property and if I want it removed I'll go through heaven and hell to have it removed.

Re:Just hot air

[linuxrocks123]

"If the defendent doesn't show up for the trial, you get a default judgement."

Well, that's technically not right. Even if the respondent doesn't show up, you still have to present a reasonable case. You do almost always win since the other guy isn't there to argue against you.

This fact is irrelevant to the issue of international jurisdiction anyway. Let's say I sue a guy who lives in Zimbabwe for damaging some property I'm holding in Zimbabwe. This guy has no connection whatsoever to the U.S. I sue him in U.S. court. He could show up to the trial and argue that the United States doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter, and he would almost certainly win.

Every complaint has a section where the plaintiff argues that the court under which the complaint is filed has jurisdiction over the matter. Why do you think that is?

Re:Just hot air

[AxelBoldt]

Let's say I sue a guy who lives in Zimbabwe for damaging some property I'm holding in Zimbabwe.

Or let's say he damaged some property of yours in the U.S., for example by hacking into your computer. And let's further assume that hacking is legal in Zimbabwe. So you sue him in the U.S.

Re:Just hot air

[linuxrocks123]

"Or let's say he damaged some property of yours in the U.S., for example by hacking into your computer. And let's further assume that hacking is legal in Zimbabwe. So you sue him in the U.S."

Well, then for the U.S. the issue would be whether hacking into someone's computer creates the necessary minimum contacts for the U.S. to have jurisdiction over the case. It probably wouldn't matter anyway, though, since if hacking were legal in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe probably wouldn't enforce a judgment against it.

With regard to the Wikipedia entry, the central question for Germany is this: Does making a website accessible worldwide create the necessary minimum contacts for _every country in the world_ to have jurisdiction over the contents of every website? The answer is, of course, no. Otherwise, pornography sites in the U.S. would be sued by China, Syria, and the like all the time and be forced to shut down. If a German court acts bizarrely and answers yes, Tron's family will then have to file with a U.S. court to make the judgment enforceable in the U.S. Wikipedia could easily ignore Germany entirely and argue in the hearing to make the German judgment enforceable that Germany has no jurisdiction. Wikipedia would almost certainly win.

Finally, Jimbo Wales wouldn't be arrested if he set foot anywhere in the E.U. for the following reasons:

1. This is a local German court, not an E.U. court. German law is arguably being violated, not E.U. law. The same jurisdictional argument that applies to the U.S. applies to other countries in the E.U. So he's fine anywhere except Germany from the git-go.

Assuming he travels to Germany specifically, then...

2. Jimbo Wales would not be a party to the case. The Wikimedia Foundation would be the entity sued since it is hosting the content.

Assuming he is somehow a party, then...

3. This is a civil matter, as you pointed out, not a criminal one. Civil judgments don't lead to arrests.

He wouldn't be fined either if he went to the E.U. or Germany, by arguments 1 and 2.

Re:Just hot air

[AxelBoldt]

Jimbo Wales, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, was personally named in the first order of the Berlin court (there were two orders, the one in December naming Jimbo, the one in January naming Wikimedia Germany). Disobeying such an order of a German court results in fines or arrest ("Ordnungshaft"), whatever the judge deems appropriate. The fact that it's German law and not EU law that's violated is not relevant, since EU countries assist each other all the time in legal matters, just like the U.S. states do. I admit that I don't know whether other EU countries would cooperate in such a minor civil matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a way for the judge to request EU assistance if he really got pissed off.

Re:Just hot air

[mysidia]

False. Information about a subject is nobody's property.

If somebody writes an article about you, then that person (or whoever hired or contracted the author) owns the copyright to the article, and you (as the subject) can't stop them from publishing an article about you --- that is part of their right to free speech.

Of course the publisher can't put just anything in their article; they have to obey the law, for instance, by not publishing outright lies with an intent to harm someone.

Re:Just hot air

[linuxrocks123]

"Jimbo Wales, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, was personally named in the first order of the Berlin court (there were two orders, the one in December naming Jimbo, the one in January naming Wikimedia Germany)."

According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker)#Curren t_controversy%5D, the first order was against the Wikimedia _Foundation_, not Jimbo Wales personally, and the second was against Wikimedia Foundation subsidiary Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.

"Disobeying such an order of a German court results in fines or arrest ("Ordnungshaft"), whatever the judge deems appropriate."

I'll take your word on this since you're from there.

"The fact that it's German law and not EU law that's violated is not relevant, since EU countries assist each other all the time in legal matters, just like the U.S. states do."

If the U.K. passed a law saying that no websites could say anything bad about the British Prime Minister, whether the dirt was true or not, do you really think the other E.U. countries would enforce this law against their websites? Yes, the U.S. states assist each other sometimes, and they are constitutionally required to turn over fugitives from justice, but they are not obligated to, and in fact do not, enforce other states' laws within their borders. Since our states are a lot less sovereign than your countries, I doubt that E.U. nations do this either.

Re:Just hot air

[AxelBoldt]

the first order was against the Wikimedia _Foundation_

Well, it turns out I was wrong. The first version of the first order was directed at Wikimedia Foundation, St Petersburg, Russia. Five days later they corrected it, and named Jimbo Wales as representative in St Pertersburg [sic!], Florida. German coverage.

no websites could say anything bad about the British Prime Minister, whether the dirt was true or not, do you really think the other E.U. countries would enforce this law against their websites?

No they wouldn't (in fact they don't: animal porn is legal in the Netherlands, illegal in Germany), but that's not the current scenario. Jimbo is not being accused of having broken any German law. It's just a civil matter; the court ruled for this particular temporary injunction that the parents' privacy rights weigh more than Jimbo's right to free speech. Of course if Jimbo doesn't comply with the order it's a different matter, probably something akin to contempt of court. (BTW, in the US you can also get fined and arrested if you don't obey court orders.) Like I said before, I do not know whether but I wouldn't be surprised if the German court can make other EU countries cooperate in cases of contempt of court.

Re:Just hot air

[linuxrocks123]

"No they wouldn't (in fact they don't: animal porn is legal in the Netherlands, illegal in Germany), but that's not the current scenario. Jimbo is not being accused of having broken any German law. It's just a civil matter; "

It doesn't matter whether its civil or criminal in this instance; it's still a case of a country trying to enforce its laws outside its borders. Take our hypothetical case of hacking being legal in Zimbabwe (which it probably isn't). If hacking is not a civil liability when done in Zimbabwe, then if someone hacks my computer system, which let's say is physically located in Zimbabwe, the hacker would not be liable in a civil court for hacking my system. If a U.S. court issued an injunction against this Zimbabwe hacker, it would be invalid since the hacker is outside the U.S.'s jurisdiction.

"the court ruled for this particular temporary injunction that the parents' privacy rights weigh more than Jimbo's right to free speech."

No, they weigh more than _Wikipedia_'s right to free speech. Jimbo happens to work for Wikipedia, but he is not the same entity as Wikipedia. He was probably listed as the contact to receive notices of suit (I can't remember what this is called), but he wasn't listed. If Wikipedia doesn't comply, it could be fined (good luck enforcing that).

"BTW, in the US you can also get fined and arrested if you don't obey court orders."

Yeah, but you're entitled to a hearing. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court%5D :

"A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt, and to present evidence in rebuttal."

So if the countries here were reversed, and Jimbo were charged with contempt of court, he could probably successfully argue (perhaps only on appeal) that the order is invalid since it is a case of the court acting outside its jurisdiction.

Re:Just hot air

[idlake]

I don't know about German law, but the United States generally doesn't believe they have jurisdiction about what people do in other countries.

What rock have you been living under?

Why do you believe Germany thinks its laws apply to everyone in the world?

Germany applies its laws as it sees fit, just like the US. Generally, the extent to which laws of one nation apply elsewhere are limited by jurisdiction and ability to enforce. In this case, enforcement can happen against the German domain registrar, against any German ISPs involved, against any German subsidiaries of US companies involved, and against a US citizen should he step on German soil.

In practice, German law, law enforcement, and courts are usually far more restrained than US law, law enforcement, and courts, in international matters and matters involving foreign citizens.

Re:Just hot air

[linuxrocks123]

> What rock have you been living under?

If you disagree with me, please state why instead of engaging in an ad hominem attack. I thought the fact that countries don't generally have jurisdiction over each other was obvious from the principle of sovereignty, but since you have now disputed it I will cite evidence to support my statement. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdicti on%5D:

"The United States, but also China or Russia are strong opponents of any kind whatsoever of international jurisdiction."

With regard to cyberspace specifically, the U.S. case _Mattel, Inc. v. Adventure Apparel_ determined in part that passive, noncommercial websites (similar to Wikipedia) were not the subject of jurisdiction outside the physical location of the servers. I think it's clear that the U.S. sees strict limitations on the jurisdiction to which websites are subjected, especially the noncommercial like Wikipedia.

Iraq has nothing to do with this, by the way. The U.S. didn't go to war to enforce its laws in Iraq; it went there (at least nominally) because Iraq had broken several treaties with the U.N. I agree that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq, but Iraq is a completely unrelated issue.

> Germany applies its laws as it sees fit, just like the US. Generally, the extent to which laws of one nation apply elsewhere are limited by jurisdiction and ability to enforce.

That statement is self-contradictory. Germany cannot think it can apply its law "as it sees fit" to the rest of the world and simultaneously see itself as "limited by jurisdiction".

> In this case, enforcement can happen against the German domain registrar, against any German ISPs involved.

Mmmm, no. A German ISP allows a web surfer to get to the American Nazi Party website. Let's say that has a swatztika on it, making it illegal in Germany (yes, really). Is the ISP liable? No, of course not. Same thing here. Your argument is absurd because if it were true there wouldn't be Internet access in Germany.

> against any German subsidiaries of U.S. companies involved,

1. Only if the U.S. company did something in Germany that is illegal in Germany.
2. There are no companies involved in this case. Wikipedia is a nonprofit.

> and against a US citizen should he step on German soil.

This case, so far, only involves organizations, not people. So the Wikimedia Foundation would be the entity violating the court order. This is not a physical being that can step on German soil, so I think it's safe.

So no, Jimbo Wales won't be arrested the next time he goes to Germany, because Jimbo Wales != Wikimedia Foundation; he just works there.

By the same token, the CEO of the hosting provider for Wikipedia won't be arrested if he goes to Germany either. Neither will the technicians of power company providing juice to Wikipedia's servers.

Wikipedia was never "closed"

[imthesponge]

The site ( http://de.wikipedia.org/ ), along with the other language Wikipedias, is located in the US, and it's still up. Only the redirect ( http://wikipedia.de/ ) is affected by the injunction, since it's under German jurisdiction.

I only had to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker)#Current _controversy to find that..

Wikiopinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people insist on thinking wikipedia is based on facts? Everyone should know by now that this is just the new home of all the old school usenet trolls! Wikiwasteoftime if ya ask me...

Re:Wikiopinions

[PastAustin]

Why do people insist on thinking wikipedia is based on facts? Everyone should know by now that this is just the new home of all the old school usenet trolls! Wikiwasteoftime if ya ask me...

*knock knock*

Hey... Would you let reality in?
Reality

Also who _DID_ ask you?

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like the German wikipedia is taken off the net. It's just the popular domain wikipedia.de that's unavailable. de.wikipedia.org works just fine, and has all the information ready that is being debated.
It more of a side-effect of the german justice system that you're experiencing here. There are "act quickly" court orders that you need to obey, until the real case is being discussed in court. I'd bet they'll just reject to even start debating the case. Freedom of press is valued highly _in Germany_, you know.

Re:Not really

[sploxx]

It more of a side-effect of the german justice system that you're experiencing here. There are "act quickly" court orders that you need to obey, until the real case is being discussed in court.

But I don't understand why they are blocking the whole site/redirector wikipedia.de. Wouldn't it be enough to just block the article in question?

This seems to be either a clueless court or wikipedia.de trying to get some media attention on this censorship issue.

Re:Not really

[Lehk228]

wikipedia.de redirects to de.wikipedia.org. there is no way to edit/block pages on wikipedia.de without doing the same on de.wikipedia.org.

Re:Not really

[sploxx]

wikipedia.de redirects to de.wikipedia.org. there is no way to edit/block pages on wikipedia.de without doing the same on de.wikipedia.org.

There is a web server running separately on wikipedia.de. What is the technical problem with selectively filtering the Tron-URL?

Re:Not really

[gneer]

And then, thought it a step further: Why not just to remove Tron's family name from the article in question?

I think, that would be the most simple solution for the case.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

But I don't understand why they are blocking the whole site/redirector wikipedia.de. Wouldn't it be enough to just block the article in question?

That was the first step, a few days earlier. But as the article itself is not hosted in Germany, nobody complied to that court order. (The German court is, technically speaking, not even able to serve the court order in the bay area).

Thus the court came up with the idea to block the wikipedia.de site, the site they actually *can* block.

Thomas

Re:Not really

[sploxx]

And then, thought it a step further: Why not just to remove Tron's family name from the article in question?
Yes, but as I understand it, the article is not served from germany so the court can't make an order to change it (of course, everyone from the court could change the article, but that is another issue :) - so they are going to wikipedia.de and wikipedia.de has to comply...

It seems that the technical/natural way of thinking here is wrong, as it is about silly compliance with laws. Not to say that I want to be the parents of this guy and be linked to cyberterrorism all the time. But the name is on the net and there is nothing short of monitoring and filtering all transnational fibers in germany to stop this - and this reminds me of not-so-nice countries...

ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[Tackhead]

ACHTUNG!

ALLES WEBBENSURFERS!

Das Wikipagen is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy pissen off der blogbereich, libellen und slanderen mit lawsuitspawnen. Ist nicht fur editten by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken kourtjudgen musten keepen das cotten-pickenen hands in das pockets - relaxen und watchen das flammekrieg.

Actual Complaint

[wangf00]

So what is their actual complaint here? Are they just mad that wikipedia posted easily findable information in an article? Or are they mad that their name is linked to a convicted criminal? Seems like wikipedia is the wrong place to divert that anger.

Re:Actual Complaint

[globalar]

According to another Wiki article, the parents originally tried to force a German publisher to remove from sale a piece of fiction that had a character with their son's handle, Tron. Allegedly, the publisher declined saying that the Wikipedia used the name. The parents now pursue Wikipedia. This is all completely based on the Wiki article, though.

Re:Actual Complaint

[jmnormand]

Actualy the book used the name Boris Floricic not Tron. i suspect disney would have a bit of an issue with a book using the name Tron. however unless the "fictional" book was specificly based on Tron's life i dont see how they have any claim. just because you choose a name for you kid doesnt make it a trademark...

Re:Actual Complaint

[parabyte]

The background here is extremely complex. I knew TRON personally, and I know many people from the german wikipedia community and the Chaos Computer Club, where TRON was active until his death. From what I see, the community has been divided in about two halves for some time regarding the issue of TRON's real name in wikipedia, even if no one appreciates the escalation. But the story is not a story of censorship or some bad guys against wikipedia, it is the story of parents of a dead hacker against ignorance and harping on about principles. The parents did not want to have the article removed, they just wanted TRONs real name to be abbreviated as Boris F., instead of the full name as it is in the wikipedia right now. Seven letters.

But for everyone who has not been involved: here is a short version of a complex story how I have experienced it:

• Boris F. was a german hacker under the pseudonym TRON, doing a lot of advanced chipcard hacking and crypto gear development
• TRON died in 1998, he probably committed suicide, but there is a slight chance he was murdered
• All german newspapers and TV covered the case, and two books were written about it, among them a novel ("Offenbarung 23") that contains a lot of bullshit that no parent wants to read about a son, especially if it is fiction; however, for marketing purposes, the author of the novel printed the full real name in the book, stating that his novel was "based" on this real case
• the parents sued the publisher/author of the book to remove the real name
• the author/publisher used as a defence that the real name can be found in the wikipedia
• the parents removed the real name from the article
• a wikipedia edit war broke out, which resulted in several locks by wikipedia admins
• the parents tried for months to convince wikipedia admins to remove the real name; of course they are aware that the name can be found in the internet at many places, but the fact it is on wikipedia was used against them in a court case, so they had to act
• in the wikipedia community, there were advocates for both sides, probably about half of the people arguing to respect the wish of the parents, the other half to keep the full real name there, for the sake of information freedom; if you speak german you can read the discussion page at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Tron_(Hack er)
• the wikipedia community finally decided to leave the name there, but the process is not a very democratic or transparent one, and even if it was, minority rights are above democratic decisions
• at the german wikimedia foundation, no one was able to really deal with the situation; instead, they basically argued "we are not responsible for the content"
• some individuals at wikipedia who had no mandate to do so dragged this thing into the press, escalating the issue out of control of the community
• the parents, their supporters and the german court machinery did their work, and now a court ordered that the domain wikipedia.de must no longer forward to the de.wikipedia any more

The question is: How could this get so far? I think, because of the ignorance and stubbornness some of the wikipedia people in Germany who decided to ignore the asking and adjuring of the parents of a dead guy on one side, and the determination of friends of TRON and supporters of the parents, who are also part of the hacker community and at some point gave up in convincing *all* of the involved wikipedians and finally helped the parents to legally proceed against wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia underestimtated the determination of the parents because they are just, well, some parents of some dead hacker. They even ignored all ample warnings, publicly accusing the people who warned them that they are making up the legal threats, and that they do not speak for the parents. All in the name of freedom of information.

In Germany ther

Re:Actual Complaint

[Hast]

the author/publisher used as a defence that the real name can be found in the wikipedia

Why is this relevant to the case? Wasn't the point that the story was "based" on the hacker Tron and that they because of this tried to give credibility to their book by using his name.

As was pointed out this information can be found on the net so it's not like the Wikipedia is the last resort. (What I mean is, if they remove it from Wiki they'll just claim "Well the name is available here, here and here as well!".)

I just can't see how the Wiki article can be relevant to this. (Outside of the world of lawyers, which as we all know only rarely connects with the real world.)

Re:Actual Complaint

[parabyte]

The wikipedia article has been introduced as evidence into the case, so the parents had to proceed against wikipedia if they did not want to loose. Other way round, if they would have tolerated the naming in the wikipedia, they would have to tolerate the naming in the book, too. The fact that the name can be found anywhere else is not relevant as long as the source is not introduced into the case as an evidence.

p.

Re:Actual Complaint

[1u3hr]

The dilemma here is that two values are in conflict...The protection of privacy, in this case: the right not to be associated with some fictive character that has been based on their son's life, and the personal rights of the son that are at protected even post mortem.

Very few countries protect the privacy of the dead. That's why all the nasty stories come out after a celeb dies, but no one can sue for libel. As for the parents, they are not mentioned and it's just their bad luck their surname is distinctive. If the Wikipedia article is true in the facts about Tron, I really don't see anything they have a right to complain about. Should the Hitler family demand their most famous member be referred to as "Adolph H." so as not to embarrass them?

Re:Actual Complaint

[JudicatorX]

So will they be airbrushing him out of photos now too?

Is that how much they hate him?

Re:Actual Complaint

[juhaz]

You've been claiming that the publisher used wikipedia as a "defence" or "evidence" - that doesn't matter, what matters is did the court really buy that abysmally bad excuse? If they did, THERE is your real problem, everyone can see that usage of name in a factual biography, foreign to boot, is vastly different from use in libelous fiction novel, file an appeal.

You've also stated that other sites with the name are not "relevant" which is, frankly, bullshit. It may not have been presented yet, but the publisher has shown that they're willing to use that excuse, and they WILL use it again even if Wikipedia should yield, if the parents think they can censor the whole world while the publisher keeps up coming with other places that show it, one after another, they're kidding themselves, that way lies defeat, but they also end up hurting freedom of speech in the process.

Wikipedia is not the bad guy here, prosecuting an innocent third party as a workaround because you can't get at the real culprit is wrong, no matter what. The parents deserve to lose this one.

Re:Actual Complaint

[gowen]

But the story is not a story of censorship ... they just wanted TRONs real name to be abbreviated as Boris F., instead of the full name as it is in the wikipedia right now.

This isn't a story of censorship, they just want the legal power to remove factual information from a website because they don't want it to become known...

Erm ... how is that not censorship exactly?

Re:Actual Complaint

[Fnkmaster]

The grandparent poster makes several good points and you fail it by bringing Hitler into the argument, even in an oblique fashion. The point is that politicians and movie stars choose to live their lives in the limelight, whereas a private citizen doesn't. In this case, the notoriety of a private citizen who never used his real name in any public forum stands to adversely impact the business and personal lives of his parents, who have already suffered immensely due to what sounds like his untimely death.

I can sympathize with the parents here. And I think any reasonable person could. Just saying "sucks to be them" doesn't really feel right. Whether the nature of the legal remedy or the path they have pursued for recourse is right is a different question.

In the US, their only recourse would be under libel laws. But Germany has a different legal system with different social and legal standards for privacy. And in Germany, it is considered illegal to disclose the full identity of somebody in the light of accusing them of criminal acts in a public forum if they are not a public figure.

So should Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation respect court rulings in Germany regarding content? What about rulings from other countries, whether free and democratic or much more oppressive? Where do you draw that line? Should they respect the ruling in this particular case due to the considerations of the parents and the serious harm that may be caused to several innocent people by the publication of this material, regardless of whether they should, in general, respect such rulings?

I don't think the answers to all these questions are clearcut. An encyclopedia inevitably will face questions of the definition of libel, the right to privacy, and so on in the society that it is published in. But what happens when an encyclopedia exists outside the context of any one society, like Wikipedia, and is edited by people from many cultures and many nations collaboratively, and can be accessed by all over the Internet?

One answer could be "let's just apply the American norms across the board, respect American law, and to hell with everything else". The problem then is that the Wikimedia Foundation can be seen as an outlaw organization in a mainstream European country like Germany (let's forget about places like Iran for now).

The strongest argument to me seems to be the common carrier argument - it is impossible for Wikipedia to police the edits made by every editor from every country, and in particular to ensure that said posts comply with the laws of their particular country of origin. If Germany has a problem with the content of that page, they should go after the Germans who posted it, over whom they have jurisdiction. If a non-German wrote it, and it's hosted in a non-German country, however, then I don't really see why Germany should have any jurisdiction whatsoever, just because a .de domain redirects to it and the Foundation associated with the "hosting" or common carrier site happens to have a German branch.

In the same vein, if such posts are outside of German jurisdiction, they shouldn't be referenceable in a German court as proof of anything with respect to a case involving the family's privacy rights.

Re:Actual Complaint

[1u3hr]

you fail it by bringing Hitler into the argument

"Unmentionable" names are what this is about.

libel, the right to privacy,..

For the dead?

let's just apply the American norms

FYI, I'm not American.

I can sympathize with the parents here.

For the pain their son brought on them in his life and death; for having a sleazy fictionalising of his life to torment them; but that gives them no right to harass others.

Re:Actual Complaint

[nietsch]

You can be sure that a lot of Adolphs and Hitlers (tried to) changed their name after the war.
But Adolph Hitler did not refer to himself as Adolph H. or tried any other way to stop his name from being known.
This TRON certainly did try to keep his family name hidden and he certainly did not commit horrible crimes(ie like Marc Dutroux).

I think the problem is caused by some anal wikipedians that are turned-on by following the rules/principles but lack the empathy (let me translate for /.: ability to sense other peoples emotions)to understand why in this case they are still free to use his familyname but better shouold not do so.

This is not bad luck, this is just pure cruelty. Everybody will agree that the 'author' that put TRON's name on a fictional book is an opportunistic bastard, but so is every dilletant that uses his name to prove their freedom of speech.

Re:Actual Complaint

[DrXym]

The question is: How could this get so far? I think, because of the ignorance and stubbornness some of the wikipedia people in Germany...

I think this is silly. Whether the parents like it or not, the life and death of their son is part of the public record. It would be absurd for Wikipedia to remove his surname to spare their feelings, or even to help them in a court battle.

Besides which, you can't spin an entire book out of a single wikipedia article. If they have a problem with the author, they should take it up with the author and not with short and mostly impartial report into their son's life.

Re:Actual Complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if the wikipedia does not remove the full name of Boris F, access to the wikipedia in Germany will be made more difficult and uncomfortable in the future. I wish the people involved would have acted more wisely before; now this thing will have to be fought until one side gives up."

But these two issues "access to wikipedia" and referencing Boris' name are fully unrelated.

It is like saying: If you do A) then we punish you with b)

It speaks for itself that you even think about webfiltering solutions. Shame on you.

Re:Actual Complaint

[the_doctor_23]

This TRON certainly did try to keep his family name hidden and he certainly did not commit horrible crimes(ie like Marc Dutroux).

No, he did not. His thesis, that dealt with the famous Cryptophon, included his full name. He distributed this thesis freely in order to promote voice encryption. For almost 4 years now his thesis was available unchanged, and again including his full name, available from the ccc's ftp server until it was edited out on 2005-12-08.

As much as I can relate to the family's wishes, I think there are no grounds for censoring the name after it is that widely known.
In addition to that the whole affair seems to have backfired terribly and instead of keeping the name under wraps it is now known more widely then ever.

I do however wholeheartedly agree with you on the notion that the author of said book is an 'opportunistic bastard' as you so eloquently put it.

-t_d

Re:Actual Complaint

[Hast]

Makes sense.

OTOH it seemed like what they were really upset with was that the book had a character obviously based on their dead son while it didn't really portray an accurate image.

That'd be more of a libel suit than anything else. OTOH I believe the laws protecting against that are rather weak in Germany. Unless I'm mistaken the Swedish royal house (among other European royals I'm sure) tend to legally bitch-slap several papers in Germany each year for making up stories and publishing them as truth.

I'm sure not many actually believe that crap they post, but I can see how it would be annoying.

Re:Actual Complaint

[1u3hr]

This TRON certainly did try to keep his family name hidden and he certainly did not commit horrible crimes(ie like Marc Dutroux).

No one says he did commit horrible crimes, which is why I fail to see hte grat stigm of sharing his name. I think the problem is caused by some anal wikipedians that are turned-on by following the rules/principles but lack the empathy (let me translate for /.: ability to sense other peoples emotions)to understand why in this case they are still free to use his familyname but better shouold not do so. This is not bad luck, this is just pure cruelty.

Yes; I agree that sensitivity to the family's feelings would be desirable. However, the law shouldn't and can't be used to force people to be nice.

Re:Actual Complaint

[nietsch]

As much as I can relate to the family's wishes, I think there are no grounds for censoring the name after it is that widely known.
When it is censoring and when is it social manners? If I believe you are an evil which-doctor, I have the freedom to say so, and it would indeed be cencorship if the law was used to stop such speech. But even if I have the freedom to do so, I choose not to do so. Is that censorship too?
But I agree that it is sad they had to resort to the law to get their wishes granted and it has certainly backfired on them, but even more so on the cruel and callous (german) wikipedia. And the end result is that the opportunistic bastard writer gets away with it. I would not mind sending him some rope.

Re:Actual Complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

"here was a preliminary injunction of a german court against the wikimedia foundation in Florida to remove the name some weeks ago that was ignored, and courts usually do not like if their orders are ignored,"

This is false, too. The preliminary injunction was not delivered to the Wikimedia Foundation in Florida. Nobody knows, the suitors don't tell why they did not wait for the delivery until they sued Wikimedia Germany.

Wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I need my own wiki page.. Promise i wont sue

Re: Wiki

[Black Parrot]

> Damn, I need my own wiki page.. Promise i wont sue

Here ya go...

Re: Wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks!

I made one for you too!

Re: Wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

And here's one for this whole thread: O RLY?

If they can do this over the issue of a name

[Nom du Keyboard]

If they can do this over the accurate issue of a name, then Wikipedia will just be shut down every other week over some trivial issue or another and essentially become useless.

What I don't understand is:

1: Why didn't they just ask to have the offending reference removed, instead of the forwarding domain?

2: Don't these fools realize no single country can shut down information on the Internet. Sites absolutely thrive in posting information banned on one country or another, and it's a Whack-a-Mole to try and ever get them all.

And btw, IMHO these parents really offend easily. Too easily! Judges shouldn't give in so easily to hurt feelings or nobody will be allowed to say anything. As it looks now, some Germans still want to rewrite history -- which is a very bad habit to get into.

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[drinkypoo]

Now, I'm no expert on Germany - about as close as I get is that I'm about a quarter german, maybe more, which means jack diddly. But it seems to me that they're a nation in denial. Their utter lack of freedom of speech strikes me as particularly gestapo-esque (Say the wrong thing, and we'll put you away!) and instead of having an open forum to discuss what happened with the whole WWII thing they seem to be trying to bury it. I can't see how that wouldn't keep the nation's whole mentality in a seriously fucked up state.

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[slavemowgli]

Calm down, it's just a preliminary injunction. These are relatively easy to get pretty much everywhere, and it doesn't say anything about what the final decision will be.

And for that matter... the whole case is clearly ridiculous, so it will get thrown out quickly enough. There's no need to rave about how "no single country can shut down information on the internet" and how "some Germans still want to rewrite history" - in fact, the last statement seems to be borderline Godwinesque, although I may be misinterpreting it.

So, just relax.

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[gte910h]

Laywers often don't understand the internet. They probably worded their motion in a way that taking down the redirect satisfied the injunction. --Michael

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[_KiTA_]

It's a bit more complex than that. One of "Tron" (Aka Boris Floricic)'s old friends, "Andy Müller-Maguhn" -- who was in the same hacking club as Tron (Who's real name was Boris Floricic) and was also a director of ICANN -- is suing for Boris Floricic (Who went by the alias "Tron")'s parents, because a German author used Tron's real name -- Boris Floricic -- as the name of the main character in a book.

The publisher said they had no case, because Wikipedia also used the name. Rather than point out to a judge that there is a distinct difference between an Encyclopedia using a name and a work of fiction using a name, they decided to go after Wikipedia.

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[arwel]

Well they originally sent the injunction to St Petersburg, Russia, rather than St Petersburg, Florida...

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[vertinox]

As it looks now, some Germans still want to rewrite history -- which is a very bad habit to get into.

Well... Its not as if http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/holocaust keeps getting submitted to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_deletion

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[Anonymous Coward]

But it seems to me that they're a nation in denial. Their utter lack of freedom of speech strikes me as particularly gestapo-esque

Reporters Without Borders place Germany as joint 18th in their worldwide press freedom index for 2005. Compare & contrast with the USA, who rank 44th, and who censor Slashdot, Google and 2600, not for the sake of individuals, but for the sake of corporations. Yeah, it's Germany that are in denial alright. After all, the USA have free speech zones! What could be freer than that?

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[Anonymous Coward]

> Rather than point out to a judge that there is a
> distinct difference between an Encyclopedia using a
> name and a work of fiction using a name, they decided
> to go after Wikipedia. ...which looks a little strange.

Since he was a hacker, his parents should know about implications of going after a community/community project, like (as yet pointed out) that there might a few wikipedia replications for every single one taken down.

Just google for Boris F/Tron to see, _how_ many pages there are already, mentioning his real name.

It's a crazy ride...

Germany has a history of anti free speech rulings.

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany regularly arrests people who express racial opinions or present alternative accounts of the holocaust, so seeing German courts pull crap like this doesn't surprise me.

I can't read the entry

[Fecal Troll Matter]

I'm not a fucking kraut.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[globalar]

You can download database dumps and you can find some help with importing into a fresh Mediawiki installation. You can try Wikifilter for converting the dump data into HTML.

Expert translation

[Anonymous Coward]

NOTE!

EVERYTHING WEBBENSURFERS!

The Wikipagen is not fur gefingerpoken and mittengrabben. Easy pissen off is that blogbereich, spirit levels and slanderen with lawsuitspawnen. Is not fur editten by the dummkopfen. Rubbernecken kourtjudgen musten keepen the that cotten pickenen hands in pockets - relaxen and watchen that flaming war.

Re: Expert translation

[Black Parrot]

You forgot to mention that your expert's name is 'babblefish'.

Re: Expert translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. The great Babblefish, from the holy city of Babblyon, where people of all languages unite in diversity.

Re:Expert translation

[StikyPad]

Arguably it would have been a better translation if, perhaps, it wasn't written in pseudo-German. Good work missing the joke though.

Re:Expert translation

[blair1q]

>Arguably it would have been a better translation if, perhaps, it wasn't written in pseudo-German.

Given the quality of babelfish's typical translation, pseudo-German is just as good as the real thing...

Re:Expert translation

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Arguably it would have been a better translation if, perhaps, it wasn't written in pseudo-German.

>Given the quality of babelfish's typical translation, pseudo-German is just as good as the real thing...

Reason for the latter might be that already most of the Germans aren't German-proof anymore. They mixed up German and English just for a too long period.

Re:Expert translation

[alephnull42]

For all those what didn't get the joke (*), why not look on Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinkenlights

(*) My uncle used to say "Whoosh above their heads and Splat against the wall"

What this is (apparently) really about

[mrchaotica]

Last paragraph of Wikipedia's [EN] entry:

The Austrian online magazine "futurezone" interviewed Andy Müller-Maguhn on 19 January 2006 about the case and its backgrounds. Maguhn admitted that the true reason behind the incident is a fictitious work recently published by a German author in which the main actor has the same (civil) name as Tron. The parents sent a protest to the publisher but were turned down with the argument that the German Wikipedia is using the name as well. Müller-Maguhn then asked the German Wikipedia to remove the name, but was turned down for a number of reason, including failure to present proof that he is entitled to speak and act on behalf of the parents.

So basically, because they want to stop some guy from using the name for a fictional character they're trying to stop Wikipedia from using it to refer to the actual, original person.

W. T. F?! -- and, more importantly, why don't they sue the publisher?!!

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[drinkypoo]

W. T. F?! -- and, more importantly, why don't they sue the publisher?!!

For the same reason that parents sue game manufacturers when some kid blames his bad behavior on a video game, of course.

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[Jesus_666]

The answer is simple: Germany is not the USA. We don't sue over everything just because we can - if a German goes to court (s)he does it for very good reasons, for example because less radical (and expensive, as lawsuits tend to be) methods didn't work. I would have found it quite strange if they would have sued the publisher as the first reaction.

A lawsuit is a logical step, but it's still a bit away.

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically, you are arguing that in Germany, using inappropriate is done because unlike in the US, Germans don't just sue because they can.

Did you type this in German and then use bablefish to translate?

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[Kelson]

I think the point wasn't that they should have sued the publisher, but that Wikipedia was the wrong target for legal action.

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[mrchaotica]

That wasn't really my point (in fact, I realized I left a few words out right after I hit "submit"). It should have read:

...and, more importantly, why don't they sue the publisher instead of Wikipedia?!!

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[Jesus_666]

I admit that while we are generally less sue-happy than you, we also have our fair share of idiots. After all, we have the "BILD", Europe's biggest tabloid, which has a blog (German; Coral Cache) dedicated to nothing but the horrible journalism they do (and which gets about ten reprimends per year from the German Press Counci).

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[j_philipp]

The Wikipedia quote above is somewhat incorrect. Futurezone says the parents contacted the author, who gave the argument as stated above. They then contacted the publisher but Futurezone did not specifically list why the publisher reject their demand as well.

Re:What this is (apparently) really about

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. They contacted the author and then they contacted Wikipedia Germany. They never contacted the publishers, but one might assume that contacting the author should be enough. The publishers would have presented the same argument.

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Das Wikipagen is nicht fur gefingerpoken ...

Can't wait to see someone run this through the Encheferizer

the world isn't going to end

[nbert]

I was pretty confused today when I tried to access the German version of wikipedia through www.wikipedia.de, because they merely stated that some court in Berlin ordered them to abandon this URL. After a brief moment of shock I just went to www.wikipedia.org and clicked on the link for the German version (which worked). It's just a small detour and actually it's just fair if you take into account that the .com URL always redirected you to .org (if you type in www.wikipedia.co.uk you end up on the English version directly on the other hand).

Re:the world isn't going to end

[Professor_UNIX]

It's just a small detour and actually it's just fair if you take into account that the .com URL always redirected you to .org (if you type in www.wikipedia.co.uk you end up on the English version directly on the other hand).

So, as long as they don't piss off the USA (which runs the DNS system) Wikipedia should be fine.. but as we saw with a certain lawyer who allegedly played a part in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Wikipedia is not untouchable.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go here and download the database.

But still I don't see why calling Boris Floricic by his name, Boris Floricic, should be a crime! I mean, I've said Boris Floricic three times in this post, and I doubt I will only say Boris Floricic three times (Or four? I mean, Boris Floricic rolls off the tongue! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic!)

Globalization is making these laws pointless

[ortcutt]

With global news markets, the prohibitions of publishing a suspect's last name is getting a somewhat pointless. In the Netherlands, you have to say Muhammed B., but you only need to check the BBC website to find out that it's Muhammad Bouyeri. In the Netherlands, you read "Joran van der S.", but every website in the US prints "Joran van der Sloot."

Re:Globalization is making these laws pointless

[MavEtJu]

The prohibitions of publishing a suspect's last name is getting a somewhat pointless.

It might be pointless, but with the vulturing going around in the news media to publish as much details as possible before a judge has ruled, I prefer the good old John D. without any pictures (or pictures with a black bar over the eyes) than the full name, address, date of birth, current-outfit and colour photos printed on the frontpage with in large font above it "How could this man do...".

Re:Globalization is making these laws pointless

[swilver]

I think it is a good practice, something the global news market perhaps should take note of instead of just slandering the names of (potential) suspects for money. Keeping the suspects anonymous in no way affects the story as it is highly unlikely that any significant percentage of readers even directly know the suspect in question.

After all we are talking about *suspects* here, that is people that MIGHT be the actual offender, but of which you cannot be sure. That's how I always try to see such people when they are on the news, as suspects, not as convicted criminals -- but that's sometimes hard given the spin the media tends to put on such stories.

In any case, by posting pictures, full names and every other imaginable detail, the suspect is already ruined and might as well have been found guilty. Sueing the media afterwards might be a good option, as they are by far and large responsible for ruining the lives of suspects later found innocent.

Re:Globalization is making these laws pointless

[Jamesday]

There's no slander or libel involved. If someone is accused or arrested or on trial those are simply facts about a current event, not a comment on the character of a person who has not been found guilty of any crime.

Re:Globalization is making these laws pointless

[octopus72]

And it even doesn't apply to dead persons. it's legal to write their full name.

Direct link?

[MoxFulder]

IANA(G)L, but is there anything stopping www.wikipedia.de from explicitly telling viewers how to get to the real German wikipedia site... e.g. a direct link to de.wikipedia.org

Suing the wikipedia.de site seems ineffective. By the way, there's more background on the case at the English wikipedia entry.

Re:Direct link?

[legalize.ganja.now.]

from www.wikipedia.de:

[...] wurde dem Verein Wikimedia Deutschland [...] untersagt, von dieser Domain auf die deutschsprachige Ausgabe der freien Enzyklopädie Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) weiterzuleiten.

which translates to roughly the following: sorry, at the moment we are not allowed to redirect you to wikipedia.org ;-)

Re:Direct link?

[jeremyp]

but is there anything stopping www.wikipedia.de from explicitly telling viewers how to get to the real German wikipedia site... e.g. a direct link to de.wikipedia.org

Apparently not. If you go to www.wikipedia.de, you'll find two direct links to de.wkipedia.org on the page.

Well done.

[kunzy]

So instead of having his family name in an obscure wikipedia entry that no one ever reads its on the frontpage of slashdot now. Way better...

Re:Well done.

[Dunbal]

So instead of having his family name in an obscure wikipedia entry that no one ever reads its on the frontpage of slashdot now. Way better...

      I am printing the T-shirts as we speak ...

Re:Well done.

[mysidia]

So, how long before http://slashdot.de/ disappears?

Re:Well done.

[PastAustin]

So, how long before http://slashdot.de/ disappears?

Give them time, they have to take it to court... Everyone can find their name online and the Floricics need to stop complaining...

Re:Well done.

[Anonymous Coward]

rumor has it, that his parents are pulling a publicity stunt, to sell a book on the subject that will soon be out...

Re:Well done.

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Café press.

Boris ducks into a phone booth and....

[BHennessy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Parker and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man both link/redirect to the same page, clearly giving away his secret identity, if the Parkers can put up with it, then it shouldn't be a big deal for Tron/Boris F./Boris Floricic 's family.

Re:Boris ducks into a phone booth and....

[StikyPad]

So THAT'S why Peter always seems to be missing whenever Spider-Man shows up!

Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[DA-MAN]

http://digg.com/technology/Wikipedia_Admin_says_on ly_Wiki_Admin_s_can_comment_on_process

"The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely."

What's the point of having a wikipedia if only wiki editors are allowed to comment anyways. . .

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[Brushen]

First of all, that quote in no way anywhere says only administrators can comment on Wikipedia process. All Wikipedia editors and anonymous users are welcome to comment on the process.

Second of all, on the pages where users vote on whether or not to delete a page, only registered users may have their votes counted. Anonymous users can engage in debate, but not vote, I suppose like Puerto Rico and Guam's delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Third, this is to prevent users from going to their LiveJournal and rounding up hundreds of their online buddies to vote on an Article for Deletion page to keep their no-name garage band or other non-notable things from being deleted. Registered users that vote in AFDs, or Articles for Deletion, have their votes counted based on how many edits are sufficient to tell if they've registered specifically to vote in that AFD or not.

When an anonymous user creates hundreds of registered accounts to vote on a Wikipedia AFD to prevent it from getting deleted, the jargon for this is "sockpuppeting." The jargon for an anonymous user getting hundreds of their friends to vote on an AFD to keep an article they created from getting deleted is called "meatpuppeting."

Fourth, there is no 50% threshold where entries on AFD become deleted. If an article has around 50% deletion votes, the default is to keep the article because it the community is too uncertain. Most administrators I have talked to say it's clear the community has decided a certain way when around 66% vote a certain way, while some have put it around 80%, or, most wisely, judge it on a case-by-case basis.

These are very good mechanisms to help prevent Wikipedia from being overwhelmed by neo-Nazis and beastiality connaisseurs who want to create 500 Wikipedia articles on self-invented terms for man-on-sheep sex positions.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[drinkypoo]

"The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely."

What's the point of having a wikipedia if only wiki editors are allowed to comment anyways. . .

Mostly it's to eliminate idiot comments like the one you just made.

I went and looked at your link. Here's the submission:

Wikipedia Admin says only Wiki Admin's can comment on process

submitted by kabewm 47 minutes ago (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...)

Obviously this story was submitted by a moron. Let me help him: 's/Admin's/Admins/' will do the trick.

Second, your very own quotation puts the lie to the idiotic headline on the submission:

comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

If we read this sentence carefully, we may be able to extract its actual meaning, not the meaning you erroneously believe it contains. I suggest you look up the words "traditionally" and "may".

I can give you the basic flavor of the message without you going to such trouble, however. "If you have not demonstrated your commitment to Wikipedia, we may ignore you." Seems entirely reasonable to me...

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[crazyjimmy]

It's amusing that you posted that comment on /.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[hunterx11]

Because the editors (not just the admins) are people who actually contribute to it. But the reason for this policy is so that a person can't just create 50 new sockpuppet accounts and have them all vote.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[slow_jim]

The auditing process of wikipedia editors and admins is in question. Editors have the ability to remove other editors comments or pages without counsel. Also, wikipedia has two editorial camps. The first camp is more communicative and adheres to the policies of wikipedia. The second camp is referred to as "janitors" due to the "cleanup" of pages and supression of vandil attacks. It's the second camp or janitors that are in question. There have been incidents of page alterantion without comments. This disregard for process his the center of many problems within wikipedia.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[Brymstone]

You should really find out why they are so pissed about what the Admins on Wiki are doing, Before you blast them for speaking out against the process on Wiki. Here are some links to give you both sides. First Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_fo r_deletion/Wehatetech Now there side http://www.wehatetech.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2& file=viewtopic&t=444 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_fo r_deletion/Podcasts/We_Hate_tech I would also like to point out that in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy states: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted. In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_po licy I would also like to point out that many of us who have just registered with Wiki did so to participate in the AfD conversation. We have not had any reason to register with Wiki before this debate. On top of all that some of us who have been to the site before have not found anything to edit. If editing for no good reason is what it takes to have your voice heard and considered that's ridiculous. I find the whole thing preposterous that the Admins should go to such lengths to quash such a small page so many times. It's painfully obvious that the Admins don't give a crap what people who actually care about and would edit the article have to say.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[ta bu shi da yu]

For the record, this is a post by someone from wehatetech, a reasonably non-notable site that we have deleted from Wikipedia after determining that we don't really need an article about their organisation. They been trying to recreate the article, and have been doing other... interesting... disruptions to the site. What can we say? Either we do add material, and we get crapped on, or we don't add information, and we get crapped upon. You just can't win.

TBSDY

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[slow_jim]

TBSDY are saying for the record of wiki or a personal record? What's your evidence to show this slashdot is from WeHateTech.com's Josh or Glen? A user of WeHateTech.com has created this thread. But not WeHateTech.com. There's a signicant difference and should be recognized by all parties. There has been multiple listings of WeHateTech.com in Wikipedia. By Wiki records, some of been made in the "talk" others in "podcast" and one with a french name, and another as "we hate tech" and "wehatetech". What was the impact to Wikipedia from these multiple entries? If you are from Wikipedia, please explain why editors refer to WeHateTech.com users as "sock puppets" and why editors use descriptions like "resistance is futal"? If you aren't from Wiki then ... I'd like to here from Wiki these editor comments.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[connorbd]

That's just it -- registering primarily or solely to participate in an AfD is counterproductive, since there's a strong likelihood you don't know how the system works around Wikipedia. Comments from the newly registered and anonymous are given less weight for precisely that reason. In this particular case, WHT is seen by those who were in on the AfD as being just another wannabe in the podcast world (as most podcasts are), and the arguments to the contrary have mostly taken the form of special pleading rather than a reference to actual numbers. The podcast world is extremely crowded, and since there's such a low barrier to entry there is not likely to be any serious shakeout. Even Adam Curry and Dawn and Drew are little fish in a big pond, and My Pet AudioBlog Podcast doesn't even rise to the level of plankton. WHT is, at best, somewhere in the middle.

I have been following the wehatetech side for some time as well, and the tenacity of WHT.com users is... well, a marvel to behold, in some sense. (I mean, this argument is, what, three weeks old now? Most everyone else would have given up and walked away by now.) The sheer vitriol of it all tends to obscure the fact that Wikipedia is a reference, not a promotional venue, and the fact that to everyone except WHT this is a tempest in a teapot.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[xerves]

Wikipedia has no advertisement value for us at all besides the fact someone could search for us and find us in wikipedia if wanted. I would suspect maybe what 2 or 3 visitors a month from them? This fight is more about the backwards system in reguards to anything that might be slightly controversial. It is clear there are people out there that do not like us, that is perfectly ok because the BS that spews out of our mouth might offend some people. However, if you want to take that up you should post it in the article not mark it for deletion. That appears to be wikipedia's problem right now in reguards to anything controversial. Just look at some of the religious and political battles going on now. There needs to be a way for both sides to get their opinion in instead of just locking it and letting only those who are willing to invest hours into their system a way to comment. That or they need to change their little slogon. --Josh

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways.

[slow_jim]

Encylclopedia Dramatica provides a saracastic point of view but, there's some truth mixed in. (excuse the profane link) http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Bur eaucratic_Fuck/

"From"?

[Finnegar]

"...is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry." Shouldn't that be: "...is trying to force Wikipedia.de TO removE the family name from his entry." (Highlights mine) Was the submitter a German? If so, I can understand how he got these minor things wrong, because otherwise this sentence makes very little sense, and is something a native speaker should spot easily. Did anyone read this again before posting it on the front page?

Re:"From"?

[PastAustin]

Oh damn.

They're supposed to read these before posing them?


Someone, get a hold of the slashdot admins....QUICK!

Re:"From"?

[Chaset]

Are you complaining about the grammar? I had to read the posting several times to parse it as well.

...a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry."

I was trying to figure out what they meant, and, after reading several of the postings, eventually came to the conclusion that the intended meaning is:

...a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de into removing the family name from his entry."

A typo/spelling error is one thing, mixing up homonyms is another, but picking a completely wrong word that doesn't even sound correct conversationally is an impressive feat of slashdot-ism. In this case, it does a particularly good job of confusing the meaning of the sentence.

Bin Laden Family requests the same

[Anonymous Coward]

They would like Osama's entry to refer to him only as Osama Bunnyslippers.

1h ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Google RSS feed:
Wired News: Top Stories - Web 2.0 Has Arrived - 1 hour ago

where did it arrive 1h ago?

Oh boy...

[Spy der Mann]

No better way to divert attention than to trying to shut down an international site. I'm REALLY sure nobody will know, from now on, who Boris Floricic aka "Tron" is!

Oops, what did I say? *shuts mouth*

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[BruceCage]

I don't think we'll be seeing you back here again.....

Bogus

[tmandry]

From the Wikipedia article:

The order prohibits the Foundation from mentioning the full name on any website under the domain "wikipedia.org".
And how is Wikimedia going to carry that out? Censor the name from going into pages? That would severely hurt their credibility while being ineffective (there are so many ways around computer censors that it's not even funny).

Maguhn admitted that the true reason behind the incident is a fictitious work recently published by a German author in which the main actor has the same (civil) name as Tron. The parents sent a protest to the publisher but were turned down with the argument that the German Wikipedia is using the name as well.
In that case it was, as is clearly stated, fictitious. It could have easily misrepresented 'Tron', while Wikipedia is (or strives to be) factual. How can they tell us to stop telling the truth? More importantly, does this mean any old criminal can demand that his name be removed from Wikipedia? Who has the power here - a foreign country that Wikimedia isn't even based in, or Wikimedia itself? Where do freedom of speech/press end and let privacy and the whims of different countries begin to take control?

Sounds a whole lot like the internet control controversy again to me.

Re:Bogus

[TheSpoom]

Right now, both the English and German Wikipedias are locked (en semi-locked, de fully locked) and have the full name in the article. It doesn't look like they're doing a lot to stay with the injunction, mostly because filtering every single input and article for the phrase "Boris Floricic" would just be absurd.

considering his real name was in WIRED magazine...

[voss]

Doesnt that make him a public figure under US law where wikipedia is located?
He also was a convicted of a crime so his name was a matter of public record in germany.

I couldnt imagine any US court enforcing
an injunction of that nature.

I just imagine the judge saying "Do you also want us go around and collect all the issues of Wired Magazine with his name in it?"

Message to all Germans...the last time Germany could tell other countries what to do was 60 years ago...there was also a court that settled that issue it was in Nuremburg.

Heres the Wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
or the german one
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrnberger_Proze sse

More about the injunction

[Spy der Mann]

Thanks for the link! Here's one i found at the bottom of your translated page.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=de_en&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de% 2Ftp%2Fr4%2Fartikel%2F21%2F21750%2F1.html

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop saying Boris Floricic!

See, now that's bizarre

[Anonymous Coward]

So you sue someone to stop them from mentioning your name.

That just brings up all kinds of odd questions. Like: Is wikipedia allowed to talk about the fact they got sued? And if they do talk about being sued, are they allowed to mention the names of the people who sued them? Since, you know, it's apparently banned to mention these people's last names, that's why wikipedia's in court in the first place. How does wikipedia report on the court case? Do they have to just say "we have been sued by somebody, we can't tell you who, but their name begins with F"? Are they allowed to publish documents, like court summons and such, from the case but only so long as they black out the names of the plaintiffs with a magic marker?

Re:See, now that's bizarre

[Cederic]

So you're suggesting I update the wikipedia page on this chap to state "We're sorry but we're not able to give you the surname of this individual due to legal actions taken" and link the words "legal actions taken" to a wikipedia page describing the legal wrangles, including the fact it was initiated by Mr & Mrs Floricic due to the inclusion of their son's surname on his Tron wikipedia page?

I like it :)

Direct link!

[frog23]

Actually there is a reason for that: According to the German court corder they are not allow to link to the content that provides those "information" (i.e.: the real name). Otherwise it might almost be the same then forwarding, only less automated. Some news sources in Germany say, the earliest the site could be up again is in about 2 weeks.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the useful information.

P.S. Your humorometer is broken.

OK, I'll bite

[GroeFaZ]

What is a racial opinion? What are races anyway? The concept of "human races" has a long and dark history, it has never done any good to anyone, except that some people can claim themselves superior and others inferior. It only serves to de-humanise whole nations or other groups followed by the inevitable extermination campaign. Pretty much every nation, past or present, that has or ever has had lust for power and domination, has used this strategy. Now if you don't mind, Germany does not want to repeat this horrendous mistake by letting demagogues rise. There is a lot of evil hiding inside every population, and it's called indifference. This evil is going strong in Western nations nowadays, and the more important it is that such people need to be stopped in their tracks. And you, Anonymous Coward, wherever you live, just hope your country never needs to get its own Hitler to realize this.

"Alternate versions" of the Holocaust are to the actual Holocaust what Intelligent Design is to Evolution, only infinitely worse.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're basically saying that ID proponents should be rounded up, arrested, and given sham trials?

Hmm.. I'll have to think about that one.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Millenniumman]

You should have the right to say what you want, even if it is stupid or racist. Now, stopping people from saying things like that wouldn't be all that bad in and of itself, but once the government can do that, it can stop people from saying anything. That is a short path to tyranny.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, Jew.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[GroeFaZ]

The old fallacy. Should I be allowed to and not be punished for yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded cinema? If not, then you have the old problem where to draw the line, because then you have to draw it somewhere. The USA might have drawn it closer towards total freedom, but the recent years have not really reinforced this image, to put it mildly. Also I don't get the logic of saying once the government can do that, it can stop people from saying anything. A lot more is required for tyranny. A strong, overly patriotic feeling. Willingness of random strangers, neighbours, and relatives to tip off the authorities. Basically a police state indisguise, with broad public support. I, for one, am confident to say that this is not going to happen anytime soon in Germany.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Millenniumman]

Yelling fire would put people in direct danger. Making controversial statements does not. If people choose to become violent over them it is their fault, whereas when you yell fire they can't really be blamed for not knowing you're being an idiot, because the response will be too quick. They should draw the line on it where it causes immediate danger or the perception of such.

And no, complete loss of freedom of speech wouldn't happen quickly, or perhaps at all, but it would be possible for the government to stop the press from saying anything against it. And that would cause much of the populace to be uniformed, for most don't have connections to the high levels of the government.

This is the same reason people complain about unwarranted phone taps (Other than wanting to complain about President Bush). It really doesn't hurt them if they aren't terrorists, but it is an invasion of their rights.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[hunterx11]

There is a fundamental difference between inciting harm and having an offensive opinion. Guess what, saying, "Kill all Jews!" is already illegal in the U.S.

But banning racist speech is not a slippery slope, you're right. It enshrines the principle that offensive speech which society does not approve of can be censored. There is no slippery slope, there is only a cliff, and Germany has jumped off blindly hoping that they'll land in water instead of on rocks. It isn't a matter of outright tyranny, but today's "there was violence over racism" can easily be tomorrow's "there was violence over dissent." The U.S. imprisoned people merely for being anarchists in the past without being a police state.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a different anonymous coward.

A lot more is required for tyranny. A strong, overly patriotic feeling. Willingness of random strangers, neighbours, and relatives to tip off the authorities. Basically a police state indisguise, with broad public support. I, for one, am confident to say that this is not going to happen anytime soon in Germany.

If one would remove the word patriotic from your statement, you'd find that you're arguing for tyranny. If someone supposedly "denies" the holocaust because they note that while Auschwitz's total death count went down by three million from 1945 to 1990, the six million jews figures remains inert. You want to ban speech that forces people to tip off the peace police, and of course this doesn't happen in Germany.

You must feel cool to parrot out the psuedo-intellectual liberal speech they train you Germans from birth. Makes you feel comfortable, not having to think for yourself, aye? Makes you feel warm to be nested under the mothering wing of obedience.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

"Guess what, saying, "Kill all Jews!" is already illegal in the U.S."

Unless saying that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, it's completely legal (and Constitutionally protected) to say it. In almost all situations it wouldn't incite imminent lawless action, so you're wrong.

"society does not approve ... It isn't a matter of outright tyranny"

Tyranny doesn't become less so just because it has popular support.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept of races has a dark history?

Do you mean like the Race/IQ gap or the undeniable physiological and mental differences?

Scientific fact is no reason to mistreat people but knowledge of what Hitler allegedly did during WWII is not an excuse to try to ignore science about evolution (I find it rather strange that you sit here and bash ID while at the same time try to belittle the same biology that attacks ID as well).

Its really pointless for a Black to say he has bigger genitals than me, or for me to claim that I have a higher intelligence. Evolution favored different types of human characteristics based on the different environments we lived in.

Race exists. It is not a social construct. Denial of the facts about the history of human development is a denial of nature and science. This attempt to criminalize facts about cosmic nature is nothing more than an acknowledgement that the truth is inconvenient in society because it proves that we are not equal.

Maybe I am arguing that society would be better off if we grouped ethinc people together (Germans with other Germans, Zulus with other Zulus, Welsh with other Welsh, etc). Perhaps that is a form of "hate speech" in your mind. What is definitely true is that modern society is incompatible with the facts of life.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I am arguing that society would be better off if we grouped ethinc people together (Germans with other Germans, Zulus with other Zulus, Welsh with other Welsh, etc).

Interesting post but you lost me on this one - it's a bit of a jump, isn't it?

Re:OK, I'll bite

[LegendLength]

I'm not sure about grouping people of the same race together (in a hypothetical world), but even though you are correct that science has pointed out numerous differences in races, people in general are just no sophisticated enough to handle that information.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

You're incorrect about the mental differences between "races" being undeniable. The major studies supporting such theories, such as "the bell curve", have been shown to have flawed methodologies and specious reasoning. And the "race/IQ gap" can be shown to be a result of cultural and subcultural differences.

It's a scientific fact, actually, that there is far less genetic variation in humans of different races than between different individuals of most other species.

I understand your point, that even if there were biological differences between people of different "races", it would not justify atrocities, but the fact is that there aren't such biological differences beyond a superficial level.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect? How so? Cite studies.

The IQ studies have never been throughly contradicted, except by so-called "social scientists" who parrot out silly explanations like "cultural bias" in the tests which itself has been proven wrong by giving modified tests.

The reality is that such psychometric tests are a very good, but not nessecarily perfect, measure of human differences.

Psuedo scientists like Stephen Jay Gould have been throughly disproven and their reasoning shown to be flawed based on data. I suggest you read http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolutio n_Behavior.pdf and The Mismeasures of Gould.

The reality is right here. You can either choose to ignore human evolution or embrace it with an open mind and still treat people with dignity. What I refuse to do is stand to accept the silly notions parroted out like people such as yourself that have zero basis in science.

And the "race/IQ gap" can be shown to be a result of cultural and subcultural differences.

IQ is not culturally defined. It is an innate characteristic. For instance, IQ tests have been given to Asians of many socioeconomic backgrounds in different parts of the world including Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The IQ data matches very closely with Asians in America who have access to clean water, good homes, decent schooling, and the like that the former do not have.

Cultural differences as an explanation for IQ differences is hogwash.

It's a scientific fact, actually, that there is far less genetic variation in humans of different races than between different individuals of most other species.

So? This is meaningless. We're comparing humans here, so lets try to stick to the topic at hand.

I understand your point, that even if there were biological differences between people of different "races", it would not justify atrocities, but the fact is that there aren't such biological differences beyond a superficial level.

You can define superfical however you want (and to you, this would just be based on your above statement), but they exist and are the result of thousands of years of seperate evolution between different groups of humans.

It is no coincidence that Asians have the highest IQ and, based on known facts, are also the group of humans who traveled the furthest from Africa and endured the types of conditions that gave them the characteristics (higher intelligence, small body mass, etc.) they now possess).

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

This might seem strange to you, but this is how humans originally developed. They did not live in a heterogenous society.

Cultural systems developed out of sameness, not differences.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[LegendLength]

This might seem strange to you, but this is how humans originally developed. They did not live in a heterogenous society.

No one likes a smart ass, especially when they are wrong (as you are). Please look up the very strange concepts of:

  a) borders
  b) migration
  c) localization and adaption to a region

"force to" or "prevent from" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cdmr Tocac,

Remember how you wrote that you didn't care about grammar, even though foreigners replied that it was important, even to them ?

Remember how one of them said that it was important because bad grammar meant a post could be stating the opposite of what was intended ?

WTF is intended by this sentence ?:

    "is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry."

Does this mean he wants them to remove his family name or he wants to stop them from removing it ?

  -> THE READER CANNOT TELL !

Stop denying it's important, stop writing non-sensical shit and JUST %%&$ FIX IT !

--

And, mods, it's not off-topic if one is trying to clarify the bleedin' meanin' of a post.

No-one ist to stone...

[frog23]

"No-one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even--and I want to make this absolutely clear--even if they do say Boris Floricic."

Re:No-one ist to stone...

[HUADPE]

Boris Floricic turned me into a newt!

Re:No-one ist to stone...

[Anonymous Coward]

I TOLD you not to put the light in the tower that looks like
Boris Floricic. Now you must hack us all!

Re:No-one ist to stone...

[Grab]

But you got better, right?

I don't see the problem here

[commodoresloat]

I looked at the page, and I don't understand what the fuss is about. In fact, I don't understand a word of it -- it might as well be in another language!

Re:I don't see the problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

yea its like the germans have a different word for everything......

Legal Status

[RebelGuys2]

I was editing on Wikipedia when the legal notice started to surface on the English Wikipedia entry for this individual, which was quickly deleted by English Wikipedia Administrators. Last I checked, all Wikipedia entries do not include Boris's last name, and though our opinions differ on the matter, most of us refer to Boris as "Boris F---" or something of the like in Discussion and Talk pages. The main dilemma, of course, remains as to whether Germany has jurisdiction over our content. Legally, they do not, as the Wikimedia servers are hosted in Florida. However, there is precedent that any individual involved in writing this article can be immediately detained upon ever setting foot in Germany. I can't remember the details, but an Australian man writing revisionist Nazi theories was arrested for publishing his works elsewhere. We can continue to post up "Floricic," or however it's spelled, on Wikipedia if we wished. However, I think that the Administrators were justified in making the page deletes due to legal threats. Where do we draw the line, though? If Iran ordered us to not write about something, I'd seriously doubt most administrators on Wikipedia would take drastic action. I seriously doubt the U.S. would ever consider extradition (not to mention the public outcry) if an American was shipped away because of an anti-free speech German law. The bottom line is: legally, Wikipedia has no need to listen to Germany. However, what will happen when one of the article's editors, or a member of the Wikimedia foundation, sets foot in Germany?

Re:Legal Status

[Lehk228]

it's only really a threat to the wikimedia foundation, as the NAZI government has no way of identifying the real name of american posters online. they can neither find the IP address related to the wikipedia pseudonym or associate the IP to an ISP customer.

beyond that even with a name they have no way of getting social security, passport, or Driver's license ID numbers to correlate the multitude of people with the same name to a specific person.

Re:Legal Status

[MichaelSmith]

However, what will happen when one of the article's editors, or a member of the Wikimedia foundation, sets foot in Germany?

How about the EU? Are powers of arrest extended to other EU countries now?

Re:Legal Status

[zazzel]

I still don't see this as a "free speech"-only thing. I know Boris' parents are suing because of the movie that uses his real name instead of a fictitional one. I don't know if YOU would like your real name in used a Hollywood movie after you've become a famous "hacker" and killed yourself (or been murdered, whatever). I wouldn't.

It's also a question of dignity. It feels a little bit like the movie producers are picking over his bones, for sake of accuracy or as a marketing stunt - who knows.

Re:Legal Status

[bhima]

You've got that completely wrong:

David Irwing is British not Australian
He was arrested here in Austria not in Germany
He was not arrested "immediately detained upon ever setting foot" here
He was not arrested for violating Austrian law in another country but rather for making a public speech to students in Wien.
The Law he was arrested on is not some "Anti-Free Speech Law" but rather they are laws aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of previous atrocities.
The US also has speech that is not protected... this isn't all that different.

Why is it that you American Nationalists always want to distort what is going on in Europe when you obviously don't have a clue?

Re:Legal Status

[phayes]

what will happen when one of the article's editors, or a member of the Wikimedia foundation, sets foot in Germany?

The same thing that happened to Dmitry Sklyarov when he entered the USA after breaking Adobe's Ebook protection...

Jail time, then public outrage & finally a sentance that lets "the criminal" free while dissuading anyone else from attempting the same act.

Re:Legal Status

[khallow]

The Law he was arrested on is not some "Anti-Free Speech Law" but rather they are laws aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of previous atrocities.

So do you think "speech" caused the atrocities of the Second World War?

The US also has speech that is not protected... this isn't all that different.

Yes it is. In the US, virtually all banning is based on the claim that the speech harms someone or some national interest. Even the really weird restrictions like sexual harassment in the workplace. In the early days after the Second World War ended, there may have been some justification for banning certain speech based on the large population of people who had served loyally in the Nazi government or military. A revolt was possible. Now, what is the justification? Where is the harm?

Re:Legal Status

[Anonymous Coward]

>So do you think "speech" caused the atrocities of the Second World War?
"WOLLT IHR DEN TOTALEN KRIEG?", in other words: in a certain way, yes it did.

Re:Legal Status

[AxelBoldt]

I still don't see this as a "free speech"-only thing. I know Boris' parents are suing because of the movie that uses his real name instead of a fictitional one.

• Then they should sue the movie producers, not Wikipedia.
• The guy's a convicted criminal, his name is part of public records.

Re:Legal Status

[khallow]

Pretty slick way to say "no".

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[Anonymous Coward]

ECHTOoNG!

ELLES VEBBENSOoRFERS!

Des Veekipegee is neecht foor geffeengerpukee und meettengrebbee. Ist iesy peessee ooffff der blugbereeech, leebellee und slunderee meet levsooeetspevnee. Ist neecht foor ideettee by des doommkupffee. Des roobberneckee kuoortjoodgee moostee keepee des cuttee-peeckenee hunds in des puckets - relexee und vetchee des flemmekreeeg.

Bork Bork Bork!

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[oddaddresstrap]

Wow, this post shows that the Germans have really made a lot of progress in modernizing their language! When I took German in high school (many years ago) it seemed like they had a different word for everything...

mod parent down

[GroeFaZ]

As several posters before you have pointed out, there was no injunction whatsoever against any US-based organisation; TFS is misleading. The injunction was brought up against a german website, not wikipedia.org.

U.S. Still the Shining Light of Free Speech

[mike2006]

The entire German .de site shut down for just a few mentions of a name out of 341,000 articles. Thank God we could not imagine this happening here in the US. Those that love to bash the US both here and abroad should take note.

Re:U.S. Still the Shining Light of Free Speech

[starwed]

Yes, in the US it would take at least a nipple. ^_^ The US has, all around, the best freedom of speech laws, but there's plenty of room for improvement.

Re:U.S. Still the Shining Light of Free Speech

[Brother Dysk]

"The US has, all around, the best freedom of speech laws" Ever been to Scandinavia? We tend to be pretty liberal, up here... even with respect to nipples.

Mod parent down.

[A beautiful mind]

What the heck does this to do with WW2?

It's a bit hypocritical to talk about telling the rest of the world what to do given the current state of the USA's foreign "policy".

Re:Mod parent down.

[stixman]

What the heck does this to do with WW2?

I agree, it's just easy to do when all that some people know about Germany IS WWII. Therefore, everything "bad" that happens in Germany gets an automatic reference to Naziism.

It's a bit hypocritical to talk about telling the rest of the world what to do given the current state of the USA's foreign "policy".

Hitler's intentions for the world were clearly stated, both in his speeches and in his book. The new danger is better disguised...

German Privacy Laws

[yitzhak]

As much as I support the freedom of information, you have to admire German privacy laws (Datenschutz). Selling your cell phone calls with location? Not a problem in Germany, for good reason.

Basically, the man has a right to have his identity protected in Germany. No, they can't censor the internet, but they can make their position as clear as possible, and I kind of support them standing up to the constant stripping away of privacy that occurs on the internet.

Slashdotters, you always care so much about privacy - is it only when it's your own? And what do we gain by knowing his full last name, instead of the inital? It is a violation of the dead man's privacy and that of his family, with no gain whatsoever to us. The only way to walk the line between freedom of information and invasion of privacy is to be pragmatic in this regard, and recognize that we deserve to protect that information which is not of public interest.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[Jamesday]

What privacy? He's dead and can no longer care about anything. Looks as though there will no longer be a de.wikipedia domain, courtesy of his family. Hope they like their own Wikipedia entry, since the press coverage for this causes them to pass the threshold for qualifying for one.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[smurfsurf]

So if you are dead, People are allowed to sodomize your body or smash your grave? Or use your name and face an some animal p0rn? Your rights do not end when you are dead.

> Hope they like their own Wikipedia entry, since the press coverage for this causes them to pass the threshold for qualifying for one.

Only if their last name is abreviated. Press coverage alone does not make a person a public figure.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[georgewilliamherbert]

Basically, the man has a right to have his identity protected in Germany.

This is bizarre to Americans. Here, if you become a figure of interest in the media due to news events or such, there is no such protection. Tron certainly qualifies as "of media interest".

Re:German Privacy Laws

[Jamesday]

None of those things affect the dead person, who knows nothing about them. We're also talking about using the correct legal name of a person, not in any way harming them or their body.

Taking legal action and appearing in the press coverage of it just did make the parents and those supporting them limited purpose public figures for this matter, under the laws of the jurisdiction where the German language encyclopedia is hosted. To remove material related to them they would need to prove actual malice and given the news coverage that is not going to be possible, because the coverage is obviously justified by their actions.

The law of Germany may be different but that's not important for this, just for whether the German affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation loses its assets or not. Worth losing them if necessary.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[Mr. Slippery]

People are allowed to sodomize your body or smash your grave? Or use your name and face an some animal p0rn? Your rights do not end when you are dead.

Of course my rights end when I'm dead. Protecting my corpse and my image is for the benefit of my survivors, not me.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[smurfsurf]

>> People are allowed to sodomize your body or smash your grave? Or use your name and face an some animal p0rn? Your rights do not end when >> you are dead.

> Of course my rights end when I'm dead. Protecting my corpse and my image is for the benefit of my survivors, not me.

The legal reason is, that your survivors act on behalf of you. That you would not have wanted the above when you were alive, so they protect your rights when you can not longer.
Just sign the paper, and your body will probably get all of the above in no time.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[smurfsurf]

> under the laws of the jurisdiction where the German language encyclopedia is hosted.

It does not matter where wikipedia.de gets its data from. Making the full names of the parents public may be lagal in the US, it is still illegal for the german entity wikipedia.de to make them available. So the article can be made, but the full names may not be accessible through wikipedia.de. So just Tron's case repeated.

The court does not impose anything on wikipedia.org. It is just the way wikipedia.de operates internally (which is of no relevance to the court) that editing the page accessible through wikipedia.de would also affect wikipedia.org. It is for wikipedia.de to adjust its operations so that their compliance with law dows not affect wikipedia.org.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[Jamesday]

Wikipedia.de doesn't get its data from anywhere. It has no data. All it is is an automatic link to de.wikipedia. A German court can prohibit this generic link or all links to de.wikipedia.org from anyone in Germany if it wishes to do so.

Re:German Privacy Laws

[AxelBoldt]

And what do we gain by knowing his full last name, instead of the inital?

Suppose you want to research more about his background, say track down his grades or his highschool girlfriends? You need to find out where he went to school, and the name he used at the time. It's useful biographical information.

Quick! Give the UN some DNS authority!

[ScentCone]

Because only the UN is above the politics and special-interest pushing and pulling that might cause a domain record to yanked for making someone upset.

Re:considering his real name was in WIRED magazine

[Jesus_666]

We're not telling anyone anything. Our jurisdiction covers the wikipedia.de domain (as it's registered with the DENIC, which is, you know, German), everything past that is outside the reach of Germany's courts. Don't think that our judges aren't smart enough to know that. Theoretically they could try to make a move against Wikimedia, but they are amart enough to know that this case doesn't warrant an international lawsuit, too. Besides, the injunction does not go against Wikimedia as a whole but against the German chapter. Which happens to sit in Germany.

Trust me, we won't attack Poland because someone posted the name of a dead hacker on Wikipedia. Really.


Oh, and we tell other countries what to do all the time. Like that one time when we told you to stay the fuck out of Iraq if you don't have to defend yourselves from them (I don't want to comment on that war now, but it's a good example of us telling you what to do). We're quite good at bossing around people bigger than us - good thing that it's not the bossing around that always got us into trouble but the bad habit of causing epic world wars to occur... And we're clean of that now.

Re:Germany has a history of anti free speech rulin

[Lehk228]

"alternative accounts"

holy shiat when did holocaust denial get it's own PC term?

did you read the article?

[Trepidity]

They sent legal papers to the offices of the Wikimedia Foundation in Florida, demanding they appoint a representative in Germany to defend the case.

Re:did you read the article?

[darkonc]

They sent legal papers to the offices of the Wikimedia Foundation in Florida, demanding they appoint a representative in Germany to defend the case.

Even though wikipedia.de is owned by a German organization, some of that organizations' directors might include be certain persons who live/work in Florida.

Just like suing Microsoft-Canada might require me to send letters to a mister "Bill G. (no full names mentioned!)" who lives near Seattle but is still a director of the Canadian company. Just because I'm sending demand letters to Bill G. in Redmond doesn't mean that I'm suing the parent company... I'm just informing the foreign directors of the Canadian company.

"Tron?"

[Guppy06]

"the short version is that the family of "Tron""

Anybody else fist thought of the Dave Chapelle Show before thinking of the Disney movie?

Re:"Tron?"

[PastAustin]

Anybody else fist thought of the Dave Chapelle Show before thinking of the Disney movie?

It was the first thing that came my mind. Ha ha. Thank you Chapelle.

Re:"Tron?"

[gatzke]

Yep, me too.

But that was T-Ron I thought.

funny man.

they are much harder to get elsewhere

[Trepidity]

In the U.S., for example, a preliminary injunction prohibiting publication of material alleged but not actually (yet) found to be illegal is called "prior restraint", and an a high bar must be met for a court to issue such an injunction.

Re:they are much harder to get elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on why the material is illegal. In the case of copyright infringement, all it takes is one DMCA notice, you don't even need to get a court involved.

I wish people would stop holding the USA up as some kind of model the rest of the world should model themselves on when it comes to freedom of speech. The fact is, you only have freedom of speech until you piss off somebody with lots more money than you. Examples: RIAA, MPAA, CoS,...

WTF?

[harmonica]

What has the "whole WWII thing" to do with this particular Wikipedia problem? Utter lack of freedom of speech? Germany does not discuss its Nazi past and is trying to bury it? Have you ever been to Germany, watched at least some German television or read a German newspaper? We're talking about the same Germany that ranks a lot higher on that world press freedom ranking than almost everyone else, including the US? That constantly discusses its Nazi past? And what do you know about the German legal system and this particular case?

You have no idea what you're talking about. And why is this moderated Insightful? Seriously, moderators, get a clue or refrain from moderating.

Re:WTF?

[drinkypoo]

Interestingly, I said up front that I was purely speculating, and yet you still felt a need to vent your spleen on me. However, there are many laws controlling speech about Nazism in Germany. The press is free - unless you want to say certain things about Nazism. Which means it's not free. Exceptions are a bitch.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, there are many laws controlling speech about Nazism in Germany. The press is free - unless you want to say certain things about Nazism.

As faw as Nazism is concerned, there are only two restrictions regarding the freedom of speech:

1. You cannot deny that the holocaust has happened.
2. You cannot publicly display Nazi symbols.

To me that doesn't sound like what you wrote in your first post:

Their utter lack of freedom of speech strikes me as particularly gestapo-esque (Say the wrong thing, and we'll put you away!) and instead of having an open forum to discuss what happened with the whole WWII thing they seem to be trying to bury it.

See the difference?

Re:WTF?

[budgenator]

When I was in the army and transferred to Germany, I was initialy billeted at the 21st replacement compamy which was stalog 21, complete with swatikas over the door ways and original barbed wire still up after 35 years. After that I when to Graffenwhor, a quaint little town that listened to continuous artillery that started in 1812 except for 6 hrs on christmass day, 6 hrs. on new years day and for 4 whole days at the end of WWII. The barracks I stayed in also had swastikas over the doors and was previously used to house SS officers in training. The walls were 2 feet thick and the ceilings had a foot of dirt between floors. All of this history will disapear when the Germans get their hands on it. About the only places you can see evidece that WW II happened within Germany are areas under American control.

Re:WTF?

[jrockway]

No, I don't see the difference. GP says:

>> Say the wrong thing, and we'll put you away!

You say:

> You cannot deny that the holocaust has happened.

Those are the exact same things. Saying the wrong thing is, "The holocaust never happened." If you say that they'll put you away. That's not free speech. That's a "gestapo-esque" police state.

Re:WTF?

[Minwee]

Saying the wrong thing can also be saying "I hope somebody kills the President" or "Gee, I hope nobody planted a bomb in my bags" in an airport.

Enjoy your "gestapo-esque" police state.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

GP said that "they [the Germans] seem to be trying to bury it [the whole WWII thing]", which is clearly not the case.

Re:WTF?

[Random832]

The fact that you can't have non-photographic representations of the nazi symbols in a work intended to be historically accurate [say, a video game which includes ships from world war 2, and has to have a big empty white circle on the deck of the ship] would seem to support that, though.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you can't have non-photographic representations of the nazi symbols in a work intended to be historically accurate [say, a video game which includes ships from world war 2, and has to have a big empty white circle on the deck of the ship] would seem to support that, though.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that supports GP's statement. You can still make it very clear in a game that you are fighting Nazi Germany, no one will keep you from doing that. Not being allowed to display swastikas doesn't mean that you can't call things what they are.

Re:WTF?

[jrockway]

I honestly do hope somebody kills the President.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

> About the only places you can see evidece that WW II
> happened within Germany are areas under American
> control.

Right, but generations of school kids got this history punched into their heads, on and on, until the moment, they cannot even hear about it again.

No wonder that the Germans don't feature many visible evidences of what you said.


But, in contrary, in almost every city in Germany I visited, there are some memorials for the deaths of WWI and WWII around. (So, I suggest, it would be a good starting point to explore the more silent locations of not so big cities there.)

Re:WTF?

[Mr. Slippery]

Saying the wrong thing can also be saying "I hope somebody kills the President" or "Gee, I hope nobody planted a bomb in my bags" in an airport.

Threats have always been understood to not fall under free speech.

There's a difference between someone going to an appearance by W and shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" and me sitting here with no weapons and no access to W saying that it's too bad John Wilkes Booth isn't around today to give tyrants what they deserve. Of course were I to say such a thing, I would probably attract the attention of the Secret Service and they might want to drop by for a chat, but they would have no legal basis for further action. (Though I wouldn't count on the current government to recognize the First Amendment any more than I count on them to recognize the Fourth.)

BTW, I'm not expressing such a belief, not out of any fandom for the criminal currently occupying the White House but because I'm generally opposed to killing.

There's a large difference between making a specific credible threat about shooting someone or blowing up a plane (or failing to prevent someone else from blowing up a plane), and making a statement, however wrong and stupid, about politics or history.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying the wrong thing is, "The holocaust never happened." If you say that they'll put you away.

Or they could, like...ask you to stop. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's a one way ticket to Gitmo.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

At a certain point it is no longer "dissent". It becomes "being an asshole".

Re:WTF?

[idlake]

Just about every major German city has numerous sites for WWII, the crimes the Nazis committed against minorities, and the horrors of war. These sites include concentration camps, large memorials, and burned out churches and buildings.

If you were actually stationed in Germany (as opposed to making it all up) and didn't see them, that's just a testament to your own inattention and ignorance.

Re:WTF?

[idlake]

No, it doesn't mean that they are trying to bury the past, it means is that the law has a hard time precisely defining positive and negative portrayals of Nazis, and they err on the side of caution. Given that German education, public debate, politics, and historical symbols are permeated by exposing the Nazis for the criminals and butchers that they were, suggesting that Germans are trying to bury the past is preposterous.

The real question to ask is why Germans shouldn't actually bury the past at this point. Germans born after WWII clearly hold no responsibility whatsoever for the Nazi atrocities, they clearly didn't benefit in any way from the Nazis, and they have grown up in a political and social environment that's entirely different from the one in which the Nazis came to power. What grounds does anybody have to believe that Germans born after WWII need to be educated about Nazi atrocities than any other human on this planet?

Re:WTF?

[LuckyStarr]

It has something to do with our historic legacy. It would be different if history would repeat itself in Germany as opposed to any other state which does not yet have that legacy. Imagine the reaction of other countries...

To ensure it does not happen ever again, german kids are thought about WWII in every aspect throughout their school careers.

The sad thing about this is, after studying history to that great extent the feeling prevails that the only thing you learn about history is that it WILL repeat itself in one way or another, in one place or another. Thats how the "system" humanity works apparently.

Anyway, I think educating kids to learn how dictatorships come (coupled with psychology etc.) to be is a GoodThing(tm) and should not only be practiced in places where dictatorships happened. This could possibly ring the alarmbells before it is too late.

Re:WTF?

[Ihlosi]

Next time you're stationed in a foreign country, try to get out of the barracks more often (and not only to look at the local female population). You might find this a great remedy to ignorance. Thank you.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless ofcourse that statement is plain wrong and an insult to the families of 6 million who were murdered and the few who survived. Well, maybe some people do not understand that other countries put importance on piety and protecting the truth instead of the ability to spread any kind of hurtful misinterpretation. On the other hand it seems the US is on the right way as I understand that similar hatespeech directed towards "niggers" as an example will result in similar possible jusridictional actions.

Re:WTF?

[Squirrelgirl]

Its not like the UK, France, Israel or USA (or many others) will just idly sit and watch germany ALLOW german people to believe holocaust didn't occur. There's a tremendous international pressure on them over this. IMHO.

Re:WTF?

[AxelBoldt]

There's a large difference between making a specific credible threat about shooting someone or blowing up a plane (or failing to prevent someone else from blowing up a plane), and making a statement, however wrong and stupid, about politics or history.

Yes you're right: different societies outlaw different kinds of speech. In the US for instance, you cannot tell people how to circumvent copy protection.

Re:WTF?

[drinkypoo]

I'm sorry, I don't see how that supports GP's statement. You can still make it very clear in a game that you are fighting Nazi Germany, no one will keep you from doing that. Not being allowed to display swastikas doesn't mean that you can't call things what they are.

The law is against positive portrayals, yet you can't show the swastika in a game where the point is to kill nazis. I think it's pretty clear that it's being applied overzealously.

English version

[FhnuZoag]

There's an easier way, you know. Click the language link to switch to the English version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker)

Re:English version

[onemorechip]

Yes, but that doesn't give you fun sentence structures such as the following:

Tron buildup with its nut/mother in the Gropiusstadt in the south of Berlin. Already at school times Tron was interested much in technical topics, whereas its achievements in are designated other subjects than rather on the average.

how does that fit this?

[Trepidity]

They did sue someone as the first reaction, though. Only, instead of suing the publisher, they sued someone completely unrelated.

How is that better?

Re:how does that fit this?

[pancompact]

Why unrelated? The publisher refers to wikipedia so another publisher/newspaper/... could do the same. I know that wikipedia is not the only Encyclopedia. But if they have no success with this case the family can still sue the publisher. If they have success then they can sue the publisher anyway if the publisher doesn't change the name after that.

Re:how does that fit this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other publishers can refer to Wikipedia all they want. Suing Wikipedia still makes no sense for two reasons

1. Wikipedia is not doing anything wrong in using Mr. Floricic's real name.
2. The defense that "Wikipedia is using the name" does not make sense. Whether Wikipedia, online newspapers, slashdot or any other sources online are using a name, the publisher is still responsible for their own use of the name.

well, Germany does not protect speech strongly

[Trepidity]

It's vaguely related in that Germany has, along with some other European countries, made an overall decision to "balance" free speech rights with what they consider equally important social goals. This is mainly targetted at neo-Nazis and whatnot, but also results in cases like this one.

If, instead, Germany had strongly-enshrined free speech rights similar to the U.S.'s First Amendment, this case would never have even made it to an injunction.

Re:well, Germany does not protect speech strongly

[bhima]

Tell me... If the in the US freedom of speech is so "strongly enshrined" why is it that the ranking of US Freedom of the Press has been falling? It can't possibly be all George W. Bush's fault... it's been falling since before he was in office.

If freedom of speech isn't strongly protected in Germany (or for that matter in the EU) why is Germany and the rest of the EU above the US in these rankings?

Even in America not all speech is protected, what makes you think the American ideology is so much better (or as you insinuate, perfect) when it's just a matter of social priority what is protected speech and what isn't?

Re:well, Germany does not protect speech strongly

[DHam]

If, instead, Germany had strongly-enshrined free speech rights similar to the U.S.'s First Amendment, this case would never have even made it to an injunction.

Actually Article 5 of the Basic Law (the German constitution) does directly protect freedom of speech. Furthermore, since the German constitution provides no way of amending this article, it is more strongly entrenched than in the US.

In addition, the European Convention on Human Rights is directly applicable in German law and provides additional free speech safeguards.

However, every country, including the US, accepts that free speech is limited. The US has libel laws and hate speech laws and lots of other rules. You can go to court and get an interim injunction in the US on not much evidence, just like you can in Germany and lots of other countries.

it is not slander

[Trepidity]

Suspects still are entitled to sue for slander (or libel) if it in fact takes place. However, accurately reporting that so-and-so was arrested and charged with [x] is not slander---it is simply stating verifiable facts.

Re:it is not slander

[swilver]

How about sueing the media for completely ruining your live and career? -- without such accurate reporting (which I repeat doesn't add ANYTHING of value to the story) that wouldn't have happened. It's not uncommon for suspects in murder/rape/child porn type cases to lose their jobs, wife and friends, innocent or otherwise.

I shudder to think what would happen if my name was on the news as a murder suspect or similar...

Article History Tells All

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tron_(ha cker)&diff=35888250&oldid=35888056

The English Wikipedia Article's history has the surname in it... whoops.

The real bummer...

[RandomPrecision]

...would be if someone just posted that name on other Wikipedia pages. Sure, there's nothing they can do about it, but if a Wikipedia page could be shut down over something like this, an international parallel would either shut down Wikipedia entirely, or force it closed.

Re:considering his real name was in WIRED magazine

[k01w]

sorry, but this is flamebait at best. where does all this offensive attitude come from? Its not "the germans" against the the wikipedia/US...? All that happened is, as lots of other people have pointed out already, that a an order to "instant / temporary action" was given, by a regional court. That does not mean anything to the final judgement, its not even clear the case will get accepted at the court at all. This is getting alot of (critical) media coverage at all the major news pages (could not watch tv today) here in germany. Its definately not "the germans" against wikipedia but more another fight between personal rights for privacy and public rights for information, and this particular case just started. So in this context your reference to the Nürnberger tribunal is not "informative" but tasteless and silly at best -k

Hummmm. Make me wonder

[WindBourne]

Perhaps groups like Wikipedia should move the various groups around. That is keep most if not all of the none english ones in America and then move the English group to some other country which has laws that make it difficult for the gov. to interfere with them.

Never blame on injunction

[merc]

What can easily be explained by a good old fashioned slashdotting...

Well, actually...

[Yirimyah]

Why did Wikipedia feel the need to shut down entirely? Christ, it's a wiki. How hard is it to edit it out and revert later?

Re:considering his real name was in WIRED magazine

[smurfsurf]

> He also was a convicted of a crime so his name was a matter of public record in germany.

The thing is this: The people's right on privacy is highly protected. This includes their identity. Media is not allowed to disclose the identity of some random guy without his consent. This includes anyone in a trial and also convicted people. The only exception are public figures. And a person will not become a public figure because the media says so or report on him. It does not matter that his name is in the court files.

You will not find any newspaper article about Tron's trail that does not refer to him as Boris F. You will not find his full name in the media.

Now, wikipedia has his full name in the article. They were asked to change this by Tron's parents. They declined, partly by stating that Tron is a public figure, so they are allowed to do this. Obviously the parents disagree.

They ask a judge for a preliminary injunction until this matter is decided upon in court. He grants it as he values the negativ impact off revealing Tron's identity higher as wikipedia's interest in giving the full name.

The injunction orders wikipedia.de to not show the name. The german wikipedia chapter decides to turn of the redirection from wikipedia.de to wikipedia.org. They could have edited the article in question, but did not.

If in the US people's right on privacy is valued less, then be it. I rather like the german version.

The injuction is against wikipedia.de, not any US entity. So spare us your cant.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[SleepyHappyDoc]

I've seen some malicious trolls in my day, but you, sir, are the worst. They took down the entirety of de.wikipedia.org for user content containing those words. Do you hate Slashdot so much that you're willing to risk the same fate for it?

Minor Correction

[ilyanep]

Just because Jimbo is a godking over there doesn't mean he makes all the decisions. The Wikimedia Foundation has a board that includes Jimbo.

Re:Minor Correction

[hweimer]

Just because Jimbo is a godking over there doesn't mean he makes all the decisions. The Wikimedia Foundation has a board that includes Jimbo.

AFAIK the injunction (the first one, not the one that took wikipedia.de down) is directly addressed to him.

Re:Germany has a history of anti free speech rulin

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all people who disagree with the accepted history are deniers. Many believe from their own research that many such war crimes did happen but accounts of them are widly exaggerated. Did you do any extensive research into the matter? Its very hard to anyone who doesn't agree with the already accepted events to do any research that might come to a different conclusion without fear of jail. If the holocaust really did happen, then the shining truth would quash any sort of denial in the face. As it stands, the climate for debate doesn't exist. Debating gets you in trouble.

Nazi Germany didn't really want to have a debate. Their arguments against Jews and non-Germans was one-sided. If you disagreed with him, you got in trouble. The idea that having a logical and reasoned disscussion with dissenting opinions on both sides of the historical events of WWII might lead to "another holocaust" or whatever other inane arguments people have against holocaust revisionism are purely ludicrous because of this. The Nazi's didn't rise to power because of an objective and fact-filled conclusion, they did so because of emotional appeal and political will of the Germans at the time to find a scapegoat for their problems. Having an honest debate does not do any of these, it merely brings the facts into the light and quashes anything untrue. But, alas, no one wants to have an honest debate. Herein lies the problem.

I, for one, do not hold a particular belief. Why? Because I see the political camps who stand to benefit from each camp. The rabid holocaust story tellers have used memories of the holocaust to call for all sorts of things from Israel's bloody policies in the middle east to the destruction of native culture, especially German culture, based on the collective sympathy of those countries to try to "right" the "wrongs". On the other side, we have rabid racists who wish to deny the holocaust to support their own pro-racist beliefs that ultimately may include genocide.

that's incorrect

[Trepidity]

The DMCA, although a crappy law, does not permit prior restraint of speech. If someone receives a DMCA notice, and replies asserting that the material in question is not a violation of copyright, the material stays up and the complainer must take them to court to get it taken down. So your description of how it works ("don't even need to get a court involved") is simply incorrect, unless the defendant simply acquiesces.

Re:that's incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be how it should work in theory, but that's not how it works in practice. What happens in the real world is that your site gets taken down because your ISP yanks your connection as soon as they receive that four letter threat.

Re:that's incorrect

[1u3hr]

If someone receives a DMCA notice, and replies asserting that the material in question is not a violation of copyright, the material stays up and the complainer must take them to court to get it taken down. So your description of how it works ("don't even need to get a court involved") is simply incorrect, unless the defendant simply acquiesces.

Except the "defendant" may be your hosting company that will "acquiesce" immediately. A guy tested this a year or so ago, put up several sites with public domain text (hundreds of years old), then sent a complaint claiming he was the copyright owner. Most of the ISPs just shut it down.

Re:that's incorrect

[nutshell42]

Except the "defendant" may be your hosting company that will "acquiesce" immediately. A guy tested this a year or so ago, put up several sites with public domain text (hundreds of years old), then sent a complaint claiming he was the copyright owner. Most of the ISPs just shut it down.

Exactly, if the lawyer of those parents were worth his money he wouldn't have sued the US Wikimedia Foundation anyway but instead notified Disney that wikipedia.org is infringing on their Tron trademark/copyright/patent/whatever. The cool thing about such cases in the US is that even if Disney had lost the case Congress would just have made a new law, the "Consumer Protection and Freedom Liberation Act", making it unlawful to do anything Disney doesn't like.

Btw. Funny fact, heise.de reported that the injunction against the US foundation was first sent to St. Petersburg, Russia instead of St. Petersburg, Fl.

Tron (hacker)

[MountainLogic]

Tron (hacker) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Other users may still edit this article. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection. Tron (8 June 1972 - October 1998) was the nickname of Boris Floricic, a German hacker and phreaker who used that pseudonym out of respect for the character in the 1982 Disney film of the same name. He became famous due to the unclear circumstances of his death. Tron was interested in defeating computer security mechanisms and broke, amongst other things, the security of the German phonecard by producing working clones. He was later sentenced to 15 months in jail for the theft of a public phone (for reverse engineering purposes), but the sentence was suspended on probation. Tron is also known for his diploma thesis, in which he created the Cryptophon, which was one of the first implementations of a telephone with built-in voice encryption. At the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 Tron was again the subject of media attention when his parents and Andy Müller-Maguhn (a spokesperson for the German Chaos Computer Club but acting on his own behalf in this case) brought legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation and its German chapter Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. This action found its most current peak in a court interdiction against using the German domain wikipedia.de as a redirect to the German wikipedia version. The redirect has been out of service since January 18, 2006. Contents [hide] * 1 Life * 2 Interests * 3 Cryptophon * 4 Mysterious death * 5 Current controversy * 6 Sources * 7 Further reading * 8 External links Life Tron grew up in a suburb in the south of Berlin. His interests in school focused on technical subjects. He left school after 10 years and completed a three-year Vocational education (Berufsausbildung) offered by the Technical University of Berlin and became a specialist in communication electronics with a major on information technology (Kommunikationselektroniker, Fachrichtung Informationstechnik). After this he gained the Abitur (diploma from a German secondary school qualifying for university admission) and began studies in Computer science at the Technical University of Applied Sciences of Berlin. During his studies Tron attended an internship with a company developing electronic security systems. In the winter term 1997/1998 Tron successfully finished his studies and published his diploma thesis. Within his thesis he developed the Cryptophon, an ISDN telephone with built-in voice encryption. As parts of the work, which were to be provided by another student, were missing, he could not finish his work on the Cryptophon. His work, however, was rated as exceptional by the university professor responsible. After graduation Tron applied for a job at at least one company, but did not find work. In his spare time he continued, amongst other duties, the work on the Cryptophon. Interests Tron was highly interested in electronics and security systems of all kinds. He engaged in, amongst other things, attacks against the German phonecard and Pay TV systems. As part of his research he exchanged ideas and proposals with other hackers and scientists. On the mailinglist "tv-crypt", operated by a closed group of Pay TV hackers, Tron reported about himself in 1995, that his interests are microprocessors, programming languages, electronics of all kinds, digital radio data transmission and especially breaking the security of systems perceived as secure. He alleged to have created working clones of a chipcard used for british Pay TV and would continue his work to defeat the security of the Nagravision/Syster scrambling system which was then used e.g. by the German Pay TV provider "PREMIERE". Later american scientists outlined a theoretical attack against SIM cards used for GS

Mod me down some more...Tron was a public figure.

[voss]

Actually you can become a public figure involuntarily by being reported in the press. So yes "Tron" was at least a limited public figure. An article about him was published in "Wired" magazine a magazine with a circulation of over half a million subscribers that is sold in germany among other countries.

The distinction between wikipedia.de and wikipedia.org is a semantic one justifying it because it only happened inside of germany. The article in question is on a NON-GERMAN server editing the article even if only because of fear of the court ruling in effectively extends the range of the german courts beyond germany.

If it was the reverse my opinion would be exactly the same, US like German courts have no business telling websites in other countries what they can publish.

There is no privacy right here except the embarassment of the family, well too bad it was
BORIS FLORICIC not wikipedia or wikipedia.de that caused the embarassment to his family through HIS crimes, and HIS behavior. If his parents were embarassed by him they should have talked to HIM while he was alive.

Excuse me for saying this but modern Germans seem to scream for human rights around the world while excusing any infringement of personal liberty done within germany as long as its done for politically correct reasons. I say that as someone whos great-great grandparents sailed from the german port of Kiel to america in 1856.

If I offended some people by bringing up nuremburg(thats the english spelling)...oh well. I consider free expression a universal human right more important than the privacy rights of a dead person or the embarassment caused to his family because of his own actions.

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't speak German, so I put that through The Fish:
NOTE! EVERYTHING WEBBENSURFERS! The Wikipagen is not fur gefingerpoken and mittengrabben. Easy pissen off is that blogbereich, spirit levels and slanderen with lawsuitspawnen. Is not fur editten by the dummkopfen. Rubbernecken kourtjudgen musten keepen the that cotten pickenen hands in pockets - relaxen and watchen that flaming war.

Slashdot is generally an English website, and it's rude for you to go on like that in German. If you continue, we will be forced to reply in French, then immediately surrender the argument to you.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[silverkniveshotmail.]

I've seen some malicious trolls in my day, but you, sir, are the worst. They took down the entirety of de.wikipedia.org for user content containing those words. Do you hate Slashdot so much that you're willing to risk the same fate for it

It's what Boris Floricic would have wanted.

Redirection

[ta bu shi da yu]

Redirection just points to de.wikipedia.org - does this mean that it is now illegal to link to de.wikipedia.org from within Germany? Sounds pretty bizarre.

Sure it is...

[ta bu shi da yu]

... kind of. Nothing happened due to Seigenthaler's comments. We are still around, albeit somewhat embarassed by the vandalism.

Re:Sure it is...

[AxelBoldt]

Nothing happened due to Seigenthaler's comments.

I think it boosted us from place 30 to place 20 on Alexa's ranking of the most popular sites :-)

"I do not remember the details" - misinformation

[Wdi]

If you do not remember the details, and are too lazy to look them up, do not post. The author, David Irwing, is British, and was arrested in *Austria*.

some more background info

[gneer]

Actually, there is some more background info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tron_(hacker) and (less noticable) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Floricic

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[AxelBoldt]

Or you can get static HTML dumps here.

Public information

[PacketScan]

I don't see the problem. This information was already public. (or so i'm told in translation).
So the lawsuit would be baseless, no?

Silly... and here's why

[patiwat]

This is really silly. The family wants to force Wikipedia to remove tron's real name from the article?

Here's a couple of thought experiments: if Kevin Mitnick's family tried to get Wikipedia to remove his full name, and replace it with "Kevin M." or just "Kevin", should Wikipedia do so? Or a member of the Kennedy family wanted to ammend the JFK article to use the name "John F.K."? For whatever reason???

  - Convicted criminals shouldn't have their full names shown in articles? HELL NO!
  - Convicted criminals who claim they are innocent shouldn't have their full names shown in articles? HELL NO!
  - Famous people more commonly known by their nicknames shouldn't have their full names shown in articles? HELL NO!
  - People who died from suicide/murder shouldn't have have their full names shown in articles? HELL NO!
  - Dead people who's families are mourning shouldn't have their full names shown in articles? HELL NO!
  - Dead people who their families don't want to be associated with shouldn't have their full names shown in articles? HELL NO!
  - Spies with secret-identies, the compromising of which might harm government agents and endanger national security, shouldn't have their full names shown in articles? Well, maybe....

Wikipedia, stick to your guns and don't back down!

---
Here's to the crazy ones

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[LocalH]

Good thing the mods seem to know of the blinkenlights, because the rest of these fucking cretins don't.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[narad]

I have bad karma

Steve Ballmer said it best...

[Adrian Voinea]

I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Boris Floricic!

Re:Steve Ballmer said it best...

[silverkniveshotmail.]

I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Boris Floricic!

I said something like that once about someone online once and went to jail.

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch.. for someone who actually speaks german this really hurts to read.. and i still have no clue what you ment to say...

Hurray?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurray for US free speech rights

How is this not modded "Funny"? It is a joke, after all, no matter if original poster meant it or not...

Re:Hurray?

[LegendLength]

I am sincerely interested any examples of speech that you wish were legal in the US.

Re:Hurray?

[ultranova]

I am sincerely interested any examples of speech that you wish were legal in the US.

Well, I may be wrong here, not being US national and not knowing your laws by heart, and if so someone please correct me, but... Doesn't the DMCA make it illegal to tell others how to bypass effective copy protection mechanisms ?

Kinda sick actually: the nazis can celebrate genocide openly, but woe be to anyone who's talk might possibly decrease potential profits of a corporation.

Re:Hurray?

[LegendLength]

That's true, although not enacted by Bush as many would have you know. But it does satisfy my question.

Does anyone know if either the Democrats or Republicans have any good policies on that btw? Because even though I lean to the right, I would definately bend and bend hard for a policy that crippled copyright, patents and other intellectual property laws.

Re:Hurray?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold down the shift keys whilst booting into windows . . . take that Bush, ha ha !!!! Hang on just a second - there's someone at the door . . . . . ATH+++++ No Carrier ........

Re:Hurray?

[jbolden]

Doesn't the DMCA make it illegal to tell others how to bypass effective copy protection mechanisms ?

Nope. It makes it illegal to help someone bypass effective copy proection. I think what you are refering to is the prohibition against marketing or selling devices or services (not information) which
! they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
! they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or
! they are marketed for use in circumventing.

Silly, pointless and won't work; German law

[Qbertino]

The parents of Tron calling for a temporal decree at a german court and having his real name deleted from Wikipedia are being silly. Tron is, by definition, "a person of public interest" (german legal term) and any legally optainable information on him may thus be published.
A temporal decree in german law is exactly that: temporal. A decision by court that needs to be followed until the real court rule is out. No judge in his right mind will prohibit an encyclopedia from publishing details about Tron.

This case does emphasise though that writers to wikipedia are bound by german publishing law and are liable for any damage they cause by deliberately publishing lies or such. Just because the server with german content is outside of germany doesn't mean you'll get away with causing public unrest (Volksverhetzung), denial of the Holocaust ('Auschwitz Lüge') or anything else that is illegal in germany. If the indended audience evidently is in germany the courts won't fall for cheap excuses. Which makes perfect sense.

Re:Silly, pointless and won't work; German law

[bob_calder]

Would the term "temporal" be more like a "temporary injunction" ???
The proper meaning of temporal of course is simply the opposite of eternal. So most english speakers don't use it because it is imprecise. You *know* how concerned we are about precise language! OMG I can't go on. Just too funny..... We can't understand our own language. Babble gabble blah blah blah. Will have to create a set of triplets.....

Re:considering his real name was in WIRED magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

As this case shows, it is useless to try and hide anything from a popular internet site with a court order, because as soon as one person gets a clue about this, the info will appear on slashdot and totally reverse the expected result.

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[RealNecator]

Harharhar ... das ist kein deutsch ;-) Oh well ... ok --- the translation of my almost-sentence: harharhar ... thats no german ;-)

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[Grab]

Ave you ad enough, English kerniggits, or shall we taunt you one more time?

offtopic

[Sigg3.net]

sig: Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

I'm sure your signature is less humorous if you explain it, but I still don't understand it.

Re:offtopic

[ScentCone]

I'm sure your signature is less humorous if you explain it, but I still don't understand it.

One of the greatest joys in my life is watching our bird dogs (German Shorthaired Pointers) hunt. They are a spectacular piece of genetic engineering. Their job is to work through a field (say, a couple hundred acres of crops or hedgerow) and to catch the scent of the type of game they've been wired to find... usually, pheasant, quail, grouse, partridge, that sort of thing. The moment their noses recognize a single molecule of that scent, they freeze up in the classic pointing position, using their noses and direction of gaze to tell the human members of the team where to find the birds. If the dogs have some training and maturity, they will stay there, like rocks, waiting for someone to walk into the pointed area and flush the birds up into the air. Hopefully, someone talented with a shotgun is ready to identify the type of bird, and make that all-important clean shot that knocks the bird down. The pointer then dashes into whatever nasty bit of cover the dead bird landed in, and retrieves it to the hunter's hand, gently as you please.

There is nothing more embarassing than watching these animals work as hard as they do to track down that one rooster pheasant in a big corn field, only to have it take to wing right in front of you, and then miss the shot. I don't tend to anthropomorphize the dogs (much!), but there's no question that, on missing a bird like that, they'll look at you with the most withering, reproachful stare you've ever seen. So, knowing you're headed out to hunt over some talented bird dogs, it's a good idea to get in some practice on the trap range (shooting at clay pigeons - basically little orange ceramic frisbees) so that you're less likely to screw up in the field.

It's likewise important to regularly train in the kitchen. There's nothing worse than spending all day out with the dogs, coming home with a game bag full of delicious quail, and then ruining them in a bad sauce or turning them into shoe-leather by over cooking them. In case you're wondering, I'm all for hunting, but I eat what I shoot, always. And a good bird dog is all about connecting the hunter with some of the tastiest birds you'll ever put on a table for your dinner guests. It's a shame to blow all of that because you've spent all of your time posting on slashdot and no longer have the upper body mobility to swing that shotgun with speed and grace. Hey... that sounds like me. Time to go to the range!

Re:Mod me down some more...Tron was a public figur

[smurfsurf]

Being reported by the press is not enough in itself to make you a public figure. The press does not have the right to reveal your identity in the first place, and they do not gain the right simply by continuing to report on him.

It does not matter that a publication in some other jurisdiction did reveal his name, it does not matter how many subscribers Wired has in Germany.

It was up to wikipedia.de to provide a way his name is not revealed when accessing wikipedia through wikipedia.de. They choose to do it the way they did. Technically, it would be possible to do this in a way that does not affect the view from outside germany, but this would have required changes in the way wikipedia.de operates.

It is also not of the courts business how wikipedia.de operates internally, where it gets its content from. That is entirely their own problem.

> There is no privacy right here

Bullshit. There is. By law. If Tron would be still alive, it would be his rights. Now, his parents act on his behalf.
I realise that your life is not considered private in the US (thous al the "my telco sells my phone data" stuff that is not possible in germany). Here, there is a balance between private and public interest. And by default, it is on private.

> while excusing any infringement of personal liberty done within germany as long as its done for politically correct reasons

You mean like PATRIOT, secret searches, secret courts, the CIA spying on its own citicens et al? No, we don't have that. Not that the german system is perfect, mind you.

And we have a high pressure from the RIAA/MPAA equivalents to hollow our world-leading data protection laws. and it f* looks like the government will bend over :-(

> If I offended some people by bringing up nuremburg

Well, for one, is has relevance, and for two, it devalues the Nazi crimes by bringing them down to the level of this legal dispute.

Still important today

[mjbkinx]

The real question to ask is why Germans shouldn't actually bury the past at this point. Germans born after WWII clearly hold no responsibility whatsoever for the Nazi atrocities, they clearly didn't benefit in any way from the Nazis, and they have grown up in a political and social environment that's entirely different from the one in which the Nazis came to power. What grounds does anybody have to believe that Germans born after WWII need to be educated about Nazi atrocities than any other human on this planet?

IMHO, there are several reasons, the most trivial being that everywhere you will notice history lessons focus on the country they are taught in. In Germany the Third Reich is a dominant factor in history which is important to be educated about in order to understand not only general public opinions (e.g. strong opposition against wars), but also our current constitution. The Federal Republic was founded directly after World War II, and the then recent experience had a very strong influence on its characteristics -- one of the implications is the very topic of this thread, that the protection of the individual generally has priority over Freedom of Speech. Article one (the Basic Law, which serves as the constitution, has articles instead of paragraphs) states that "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority", Freedom of Speech is article five.
Germany had gone from a young democracy (end of World War I until 1933), which had a very liberal, by most measures more democratic than the current, constitution, to a fascist dictatorship that murdered millions of its own people by industrial means and started the most devastating war in human history -- all within a few years, and (technically) without violating the constitution (lawyers can be surprisingly creative sometimes). On top of that, this transition had been supported by the majority of the population for a variaty of reasons, and finalized when it passed a vote by the remaining members of parliament. Based on that experiene the Basic Law of the new republic was written to include several security mechanisms, one of which is that you can't abuse Freedom of Speech in an attempt to overthrow the democratic system.
If not the Third Reich by itself, but the war it started (along with several previous ones), is also important to understand the history of the EU.

Another reasons why it's important to educate children born after 1945 is their immediate environment. Imagine grandpa telling the kids the Nazis efficiently solved the unemployment problem (a huge problem back then, as it is today), that they weren't as bad as everybody makes them to be, and then proudly pointing at a picture of him in a SS uniform. Then I believe it's important they get independently educated about the Third Reich at school, go and visit a concentration camp with their class and so on.

Finally, we must learn from history. Of course this is equaly important in other countries, but that part of German history stands out, and no matter what you say I feel there is some sort of a special responsibility for Germans to have at least a basic understanding how it happened. I agree with you that I don't share a responsibility for the Nazi's actions, but "to bury the past" would be to deny what is a part of my heritage, and of what happened just outside the city.
Societies can change rather quickly. It doesn't have to be as extreme as in Germany, but it would be foolish to take our current way of life for granted. As Hermann Goering put it:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is th

Re:Still important today

[gedeco]

...I feel there is some sort of a special responsibility for Germans to have at least a basic understanding how it happened.

Not only Germans have this responsibility. Except theire native language is German, they arent't different from you and me.

Bottom line: this could happen again, any time any place, and as always somebody will find some good reasons to "justify" this.

You should be very carefull about any practice which limits people freedom.
Former Sovjet Republics, China comes to my mind, but also Guantanamo Bay.
Everybody states he has a valid reason to act as he does.

Sure somebody will troll me down for this comment, but it weren't Germans who reached the newspapers for acting as Nazi's the last years.

Just to state the danger is everywhere.

Disclaimer: I'm not a German, not a communist, just a human being affecting his rights

Re:Still important today

[idlake]

IMHO, there are several reasons, the most trivial being that everywhere you will notice history lessons focus on the country they are taught in.

That's not a reason, it's a consequence. And I question whether it makes sense. The historical lessons we can learn from Nazi Germany are just as important for Americans, Israelis, and French as they are to Germans.

But people like to think of this as "a German problem", which is wrong in several ways. First, it, in fact, assumes that there is some hereditary propensity of one group of people compared to another. Second, it means people in other nations aren't sufficiently vigilant when it comes to avoiding making the same mistakes.

Latest Developments

[blueplane]

According to the Heise-Online Newsticker ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68586 ) the court has approved wikimedias request for enforcement protection. That means they are allowed to reestablish the redirect, at least until the court decides about their objection against the injunction.
The judge said at this point of time wikimedias interest in providing all articles seems more importand than the postmortal name rights.

Blueplane

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Mulkiatsch]

They took down the entirety of de.wikipedia.org for user content containing those words.

No, they didn't. They took down www.wikipedia.de, which merely redirects to de.wikipedia.org.

Google Translation LInk

[MCRocker]

Although the english translation option right on the Wikipedia site is probably better, there's also a google translation available if you want to try something different.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[perdelucena]

Congratulations. You finally got it. Now slashdot.de will be banned from Germany.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[indifferent children]

Vee hav vays ov making you not talk.

Update: 2005 Rankings

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554

Just so we're using the latest figures... and can see how the US dropped even lower in the past 2 years.

Re: ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[gidds]

Thank you!

Even if it flew over the heads of most readers, I thought you'd like to know I appreciated it (though my work colleagues wondered what the giggling was about).

(il)Legal silencing

[Anonymous Coward]

Like: Is wikipedia allowed to talk about the fact they got sued? And if they do talk about being sued, are they allowed to mention the names of the people who sued them?

Yes and yes, because Wikipedia was not sued by the Bush administration. (Not yet. That we know of.)

Tron?

[danpsmith]

Did he win wikipedia.de in a hot hand of dice? Three hours straight, clickity clackity!

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[jonasj]

Haha, *you* said Boris Floricic!

I think that the real problem is...

[Qubit]

...that (it sounds like) in Germany, it is illegal to even discuss certain topics in an academic context.

As in US law, I'm sure it is forbidden to cause immediate harm by your words (Yelling "Fire" in a theater), or to incite people to riot or kill (Telling teenagers about how bad "the other people" are, repeatedly, and encouraging them to "do something (physical) about it"). But it sounds like in Germany, in a University, you couldn't even write a paper about the benefits of Nazis or what Hitler did to unify and build up Germany. 'Cause if you did, you'd be breaking the law...

Is this true?

Re:I think that the real problem is...

[Ihlosi]

But it sounds like in Germany, in a University, you couldn't even write a paper about the benefits of Nazis or what Hitler did to unify and build up Germany. 'Cause if you did, you'd be breaking the law...

No, you would not. Not at all. You may also litter your paper with as many swastikas as you like, since it is all in scientific context. The only thing that's always breaking the law is denying that the holocaust happened.

It's live again as of today

[j_philipp]

As of January 20, Wikipedia.de is allowed to redirect to the German Wikipedia once again. While formally the previous court interdiction is still valid, for the time being Wikipedia -- who paid 500 to the court -- are not bound to act on it. Or so Wikipedia.de says at this time.

that can happen without the DMCA too

[Trepidity]

If someone sends your ISP a nasty letter accusing you of anything---claiming without evidence that you're a spammer, say---some ISPs will just shut you down rather than deal with it.

not correct on two counts

[Trepidity]

1) The U.S. does not have "hate speech" laws. Such laws would be unconstitutional here, unlike in Germany.

2) You cannot get an injunction for prior restraint of speech in the U.S. in most cases; only in extreme cases. See the Wikipedia article on prior restraint for more on how U.S. law much more strongly protects publishers in that respect.

Nice hypocrisy here

[vmalloc_]

Having problems taking a side? Oh what is this:

The CCC describes itself as "a galactic community of life's beings, independent of age, sex, race or societal orientation, which strives across borders for freedom of information."

Does anybody else think that the spokesman of the Chaos Computer Club should espouse similar beliefs? Nice hypocrisy here, we really appreciate that you're using government to try to censor Wikipedia from printing the truth about this whole thing. You don't deserve to be called a hacker, and you obviously don't understand what freedom of information really is.

For the record.

[ta bu shi da yu]

My point is now recorded on slashdot.

I am an admin on the site.

The reason wehatetech people are called sockpuppets is a bit confusing: really they were orginally being mistaken for sockpuppets, when really they were meat puppets, or those ring-ins who were brought to the articles for deletion page to try to keep an article, wehatetech.

It is not Wikipedian editors who are being unreasonable here: you guys just aren't notable enough for our website. However, we have numerous instances of vandalism from wehatetech - a lot of it proudly being noted on wehatetech's front page.

Resistance is futile, incidently. We will track down any nonsense and erradicate it. If you think wehatetech is notable, then you would have been better off going to articles for undeletion. Incidently, I've seen the original article, and to be frank it's crap. It would need to be severely modified if it was undeleted.

TBSDY

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen!

[jonbryce]

Something along the lines of

Attention
All Web Surfers
This wiki page is not for finger pocking and hand grabbing. It is is easy to piss off the blog police and start libel and slander lawsuits. It is not for editing by dump people. The rubbernecked court judge must keep his cotton picking hands in his pockets. Relax and watch the flamefest.

It isn't proper German