Slashdot Mirror


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.

32 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Actually, by Captain+Perspicuous · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Actually, by Captain+Perspicuous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...)

    2. Re:Actually, by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  2. Just hot air by arvindn · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Just hot air by hweimer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
    2. Re:Just hot air by idlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  3. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

  5. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by globalar · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. What this is (apparently) really about by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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?!!
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!)

  8. Well done. by kunzy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Well done. by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      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 ...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  9. Boris ducks into a phone booth and.... by BHennessy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stop saying Boris Floricic!

  11. See, now that's bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  12. Re: Wiki by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    Here ya go...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  13. OK, I'll bite by GroeFaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  14. No-one ist to stone... by frog23 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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."

  15. I don't see the problem here by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  16. Legal Status by RebelGuys2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Legal Status by bhima · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  17. Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name by slavemowgli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  18. Mod parent down. by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  19. WTF? by harmonica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:WTF? by idlake · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  20. English version by FhnuZoag · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  21. Re:Actual Complaint by parabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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

    --
    Without order, nothing can exist. Without chaos, nothing can be created.
  22. Silly, pointless and won't work; German law by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  23. Re:Actual Complaint by juhaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:Actual Complaint by gowen · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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?
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.