Deutsche Bahn to Sue Google 526
Many readers including this Anonymous Coward have written about this case: "After the DB-Deutsche Bahn (German railway comp.) won a case against Dutch ISP xs4all to remove 2 articles that were hosted on one of their servers, the DB now is going to sue Google (Wednesday) and probably in 2 days time Yahoo! and Altavista. Infoworld has an article about it. More background information about previous attempts to censor the same site can be found here and here's list of mirrors." And Yes, "Access is Forbidden."
Google Cache of Broken Link (Score:5, Informative)
Google's defense... (Score:3, Funny)
Germans will believe that, right?
Re:that is *not* funny (Score:2)
Dinivin
Re:humor on hogans heroes (Score:2)
There is no reference to the holocaust in Hogan's Heros -- the humour is entirely related to the bumbling of the camp guards and commander. Most of the German civilians referenced in the show are either outright members of the resistance or sympathetic and complicit in the resistance.
There is no reference to Nazi ideology, and even American racism never plays a part -- the "electrical engineer" of the show is a black who is well treated by both his peers and the guards.
Even the Gestapo is misrepresented. Major Hochstedter is frequently portrayed performing Gestapo duties in a pre-war Waffen SS dress uniform. The Waffen SS dress uniform was changed from black to grey at the start of the war. It's also unlikely that the Gestapo performed their duties in Waffen SS uniforms, even if they were Waffen SS members. I'd call it technically correct in that its likely that Gestapo officers were SS members as the SS controlled all state security apparatus and would have put their men in the officer ranks, but...wrong uniform for the job, and wrong uniform style for the period.
Re:humor on hogans heroes (Score:2, Insightful)
But nevertheless appropriate as far as stereotypes go.
Of course, being as it is this stereotype holds true for pretty much all the people in the world. We are a bunch of egoistic cowards after all.
Re:that is *so* funny (Score:3, Insightful)
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
-- Tom Lehrer, MLF Lullaby
Oh, I know some Germans who would disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no accounting for taste, anyway.
The obvious point is, if it's shown on German TV and Germans apparently like to watch it, it doesn't seem to be too insulting to Germans, now does it? (So much for your attempt at political correctness.)
You want to see something *really* politically incorrect about WWII? Try the British comedy "Allo Allo"...you know, the series with the "Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies by Van Klump", a gay German tank commander, a Prussian general whose idea of politics is to shoot French peasants and so on. (And again, my wife loves it, as do I.)
Cheers,
Ethelred [grantham.de]
Re:Oh, I know some Germans who would disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not again (Score:2, Interesting)
OTOH, these are very legal concerns that the linked pages contain information that, in the hands of the wrong party could be dangerous to their operations, and being a public utility, they have to be concerned.
This is iteresting because it has dire implications on page linking in general.
Re:Not again (Score:4, Insightful)
A brick, and any information about making or using bricks, can be dangerous in the wrong hands too; we should ban everything about those as well.
Blocking a page about some idea to sabotage is not going to make such extremists go away or stop their actions.
It's just about control and power; and it's silly.
Re:Not again (Score:3, Interesting)
Blocking a page about some idea to sabotage is not going to make such extremists go away or stop their actions.
Bricks are meant to build houses. Yet, you can use bricks to maim people.
On the other hand, guidebooks for destroying railroad tracks server no other purpose than destroying railroad tracks in attempts to disrupt the service, with the unfortunate possibility of killing people.
Your analogy is too simplistic to be considered any valid. Free speech needs not be associated with destruction and killings. For this would definitely put and end to free speech.
Re:Not again (Score:4, Insightful)
But then again, information in itself has never harmed anyone. What harms is the practical use of that information and that is what is and should be illegal. Not publishing the information.
If we banned all information on how to blow things up and how to murder evil dictators, how many books, movies and documentaries would not need to be banned? I for one think that is too high a price to pay for banning people like these from publishing their ideas on the internet. As far as I know, none of the ideas in their manifesto has been used yet. So, arrest the bad guys if they are really stupid enough to use the material.
Re:Not again (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you go on to blatantly pervert the concept of free speech. Free Speech does need to be associated with destruction and killing. Free Speech is absolute, it's the implementations that require (out of practicality) some restrictions.
Re:Not again (Score:2)
I thought Germany banned Scientology...
Re:Not again (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not again (Score:2)
It's been quite a while hasn't it? OTOH, In America, NOW, if one religion were banned, all religions would be subsequently banned. Germany at least seems to know the difference between "the common good" and blindly following law. In America you can kill people because it's religiously protected (Scientology) free speech. Too bad the dead have no say (Unless you've seen 'Dark Star').
And the interesting part is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Have these people not been paying attention lately?
Re:And the interesting part is... (Score:2)
:-) Probably not.
From google's cache: "Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content."
I wonder how the german court will look on the disclaimer. If they find google guilty then it is perhaps the end of silly disclaimers.
<disclaimer> This post represents the official view of the voices in my head. </ disclaimer>
Re:And the interesting part is... (Score:2, Funny)
free speech is in the german consitution (Score:4, Informative)
Translation from: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.h
Why the freespeech in germany isn't as free as in the USA is because of the second part. Most of the restrictions of the free speech are because the content of the speech is against the constiution.
Re:And the interesting part is... (Score:2)
Gee, that came before another Constition written more than 150 years prior that happened to have free speech amended in.
And the German Constitution has free speech "[limited by] provisions of general statutes". Doesn't sound particularly free to me.
Wayback (Score:2, Interesting)
Not the cache. (Score:5, Informative)
Its not *their* site they want removing.
Re:Not the cache. (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like Napster weren't responsible for the copyrighted music that it's users were sharing?
More proof that there is NO perfect country (Score:2)
Just more proof that there is no perfect country. The US has problems, Canada has problems, UK, Germany, France, Spain, and every other major country you can name has problems.
So here in the US we have to deal with the DMCA and the like (which we are unfortunatly pushing on everyone else). Germany just bans free speech, which at least in the US we consider golden.
Or is only in the US that we consider useless speech like this worth protecting. I wouldn't be surprized, and I can see the point, even though I disagree (that is it is worth pretecting despite being useless)
Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country (Score:3, Insightful)
As we all know, once lawyers start to weigh and argue about things, anything can happen and right or wrong isn't really a matter anymore.
Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country (Score:2, Informative)
At the moment there are 27 ammendments with some VERY important ones further down the list. For example, the 15th Ammendment gave all citizens the right to vote regardless of race or color.
It just seems that the First, Second, and Fourth are the ones most commonly under attack in the United States (see sig). It doesn't mean that they get priority over other ammendments.
-S
Re:More proof that there is NO perfect country (Score:3, Informative)
Read Article 5 Section 2 here [uni-wuerzburg.de]. Rather pulls the "free" out of "free speech" doesn't it?
Re:What about the right for safe passage on rail? (Score:2)
Having said that - if you're so concerned about safe passage, look in to the issue. Maybe you're not as safe as you think you are.
Not suing in America (Score:3, Interesting)
Forbidden Access (Score:3, Funny)
Save money- vote Republican
Dont they realize... (Score:4, Interesting)
By now dozens of people have mirrored the site, and the possibility of it going away forever has diminished greatly.
Fools.
Re:Don't you realise... (Score:2)
Could it be because there is a difference between knowing how to do something and being able to do it?
Let's roll... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice shot at a knee-jerk reaction.
What would I say to such a document? Post it. Link to it. Alert the media. Get CNN to do a cyber-scare article on it. Get people thinking about the state of security in their airports and the danger this represents.
Know why a group of people were able to seize guided missiles for the price of some flying lessons, airline tickets, and box cutters? It wasn't because box cutters are such a formidable weapon. It is because the passangers and crew of those airlines did not expect what was to come. Up to that point, hijackings tended to be isolated events that lead up to a police standoff on the ground. Most of the time, the majority of hijack victoms survived.
The passangers of Flight 93 quickly learned of the fate of other hijacked airlines that day thanks to mobile phones. With the cry of "let's roll" (accredited to Todd Beamer), the passangers of that flight attacked their captors. It cost them their lives as the entire flight went down in a field in western Pennsylvania. But their flight was the only one to not also crash in to a monument and take additional lives on the ground (authorities believe the flight was headed for a target in Washington).
The difference between Flight 93 and other doomed flights that day was a slim margin of knowledge. A realization that the threat was different than the past. Information.
If a group attempted the same tactic today (with box cutters, much less the nail-clippers being confiscated by airport security now), they would meet the same resistance. Additional attempts of airline terrorism (the shoe-bomber being a prime example) has lead to quick action by fellow passangers to subdue their would-be attacker.
What would a document called "10 easy ways to Hijack an airliner and slam it into a building" do? I can tell you what a lack of such a document didn't do - stop the events of 9/11 from happening.
Re:Let's roll... (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the article which the DB is trying to have pulled (it's in German, and too long to translate -- and I bet the babelfish will choke on the technical railway terms). It's a technical explanation of how to disable the axel-counting sensors which are located at intervals on stretches of track. The sensors let the central signal controlling computer know whether there is a train on a specific track section or not.
The basic mechanism is: when a train is allowed to proceed, via a green signal, onto a section of track, the axel-counter tallies the number of axels and the central computer switches the signal to red. As the train leaves the section of track a corresponding axel-counter tallies the axels and if axels-in == axels-out, the central controller knows the track is free again.
Now, here's the rub (and this is pointed out in the article as well): if the axel-counters are offline, the signal defaults to red. Trains may still proceed along the track section, but only if they radio ahead and move at walking pace.
So the situation is nothing like teaching someone how to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. Using the detailed technical information in the article, the only thing you can do is really inconvenience trains by forcing them to slow to a crawl along track sections you've damaged the axel-counters to. Sure, if you go out and take a battle-axe to random pieces of railroad equipment, you may damage something that causes a crash; or you may stick the axe in a high-voltage transformer and electrocute yourself. But, in a certain sense, the article is teacheing responsible sabotage -- what to disable which has no chance of causing loss of life -- not to you, and not to train passengers.
Why Yahoo? (Score:2)
Contents (Score:2, Informative)
In the UK, the train movements from power stations etc. are available and are on regular schedules. The security around them isn't very high, but then the flask the material is carried in weighs quite a few tons, is solid steel, and you'd need an extremely expensive facility just to open it again.
Re:Contents (Score:5, Funny)
The regular schedule being "we haven't a clue when we're leaving or arriving either, and yes - you will be delayed along the way". As per every other UK train.
Cheers,
Iam
Re:Contents (Score:2)
Really?
They should start carrying fare paying passengers - they'd make an absolute fortune
Cheers,
Tim
Lawsuit? (Score:2)
Re:Lawsuit? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lawsuit? (Score:2)
Danny.
Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
-- Clare Booth Luce, 1903-1987
These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Posting instructions of how to commit crimes (sabotage in this case) should be prohibited across boarders. The poloitical background of this is that there is a very fierce anti-nuclear-power movement in germany supportet by 'left' activists.
Think of Greenpeace activists with no mind about inocent third parties and you'll get the picture.
I hate the "Bahns" miserable missmanagement (I use the train on a regular basis here in germany) and I shure as hell oppose to nuclear power but none the less, these people are criminals and they are a shame to peacefull resitance against "Atomkraft".
Sueing a searchengine is of course somewhat of a twist, but I hope this can raise and clarify some issues concerning morally doubtfull internet content and at least leverage trans-european law for this. I might help to know that the german gouverment holds large shares of the "Deutsche Bahn".
Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, u cannot (logically nor practically) censor the web.
Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (Score:2)
Paint Swastikas in all the windows of your house.
There you go, simple as that. If I cared more, I could even post you links where you can buy paint and stencils. This is as much "information to allow you commit a crime" as publishing information on how to destroy railroad tracks is.
Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
By your logic the Allies in WWII were in the wrong for giving information on sabotage tactics to the French resistance. So much for supporting freedom fighters in tyranical nations.
This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.
Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (Score:2)
By your logic the Allies in WWII were in the wrong for giving information on sabotage tactics to the French resistance.
A very different situation:
a) the information was given by government authorities (allied armed forces)
b) the information was not ruled illegal by a court of said allied nations
So much for supporting freedom fighters in tyranical nations.
So you like to conclude that germany is a tyranic nation?
This is the same basic flaw of logic that burdens the US's war on terror. According to the definition we are using (all non-government supported organized violence) our own founding fathers were terrorists.
Well, you are having flaws in logic.
As you are only playing with words and are obviously not participating in the question: "Is that particular law suit understandable, at least, right or wrong?"
I also can turn away from logic: Supposed you have a nice house. Supposed you have made it safe with alarm signals and traps to detect burglers. Supposed I buy a square yard of real estate in front of your house.
Supposed I place there a big sign explaining in detail where you have placed which security measure around your house and your garden. Suppose I explain in detail how to counter your defence measures and grant free entrance for a burgler.
What would you do?
Remove the sign (from my ground)?
Sue me?
Change your security equipment?
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
The whole story. (Score:5, Insightful)
It actually is a much longer story (and more interesting), you can read it HERE [cryptome.org]
Re:The whole story. (Score:3)
Nice link, thanks. This is pretty cynical stuff:
This is a nasty symptom of a modern disease. It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong, as long as you have enough money to just keep bringing lawsuits until you've exhausted the ability of your targets to defend themselves. I for one hope that Deutsche Bahn are severely bitchslapped over bringing this back to court yet again.
They need to fire their admin (Score:2)
next.... (Score:2)
Those pesky Americans! (Score:2)
Subtext: Geez. If only those darned Americans would restrict speech even further and cooperate with the rest of the world, we wouldn't have to sue them here in Germany...
But they only try to ban web pages about sex and how to decrypt DVDs. Why don't they get with the program and ban more stuff!
Host Name Change (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news, www.xs4all.nl [xs4all.nl] will change to www.xs4allexceptcertainanarchistpublications.nl [xs4allexce...cations.nl] to represent recent events.
Would it not be a better idea for Deutsche Bahn to use their excess cash to:
As the already-present mirrors show, attempting to censor people's right to freedom of speech on the Internet is a futile exercise.
The US does not have a monopoly on stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, some links on a few search engines are better advertising than numerous news articles describing exactly what the blocked pages contain...
"There is no chance to sue them in the U.S. You are really allowed to put anything on the Internet there,"
Yeah, instructions on hacking railway systems are ok, but you'd better not post instructions describing how to open legally purchased documents "protected" by some form of "encryption."
A couple of facts worth pointing out (Score:2, Interesting)
2. The Dutch court has made a 'tussenvonnis' (mid-sentence?). XS4ALL has said to await the final judgement.
From someone intimately involved.. (Score:5, Informative)
I was asked to take a look at the portion of the site relating to my companies products (which was a guide on how to sabotage them to disrupt train services), and essentially the most elegant intructions given were "Pry the cover off, bash the insides to pieces with a rock, and/or fill it up with dirt/glue/etc".
This was only a few weeks ago too, and this is the first I've heard of any action the DB has taken, but I am quite impressed at the speed at which this has progressed.
(Details have been left vague to give me some semblance of anonyminity, protect my job, etc)
I am a backup site of the english translations. (Score:2)
If the sites go away, reply to this comment with the news, and I can honor reasonable requests for copies of the english translated mirror.
This *MAY* require PGP (GPG) key exchange, so make sure you have yours ready!
The Internet knows no boundaries... (Score:2)
Isn't it ironic now that the U.S. is starting to enforce it's laws outside its borders (Dimitry Skylarov, anyone?) that other countries expect to do the same? Did we really expect an international medium (the Internet) to comply with the laws of just one country?
What is needed is for all of the countries which use the Internet to agree on a set of standards/rules which govern the Internet, and a way for those who want to post material which violates those rules to restrict their sites to countries where such material is legal. Currently, the web knows no borders and has no means of keeping information from traversing state and national boundaries into areas where it may be illegal (China excepted...) While this might seem draconian, it could easily keep citizens of other countries from being prosecuted should they choose to visit countries in which their viewpoints are illegal (such as the U.S. and China), since such illegal content would not be available to the prosecutors in the offended country.
Number 1 reason America is a great place to live (Score:2)
Archive.org has it. (Score:2)
or simply go to www.archive.org and type in http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/radikal
Illegal Instructions (Score:2)
That being said, information such as this -- for picking locks, field-expedient ordnance, dirty tricks, even making ricin-DNSO -- is important to have. There may very well come a time when it is not only important but *neccessary* to conduct illegal activities for whatever reason. One thing that comes to mind is for a guerilla resistance movement in an occupied country. Information on how to fight the occupying army is at least important as food and ammunition to such groups. Yes, this information can be potentially devastating, but there exists the potential, real need for it.
Now, obviously, this information can be abused. I'm sure there are real-life anarchists out there who would jump at the chance to "stick it to the Man" and in the process kill a lot of people. There's no easy way to address this. There are two conflicting needs here, and unfortunately there's no way to be equitable about it: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. How do you decide what information is kept free?
Am I the only one who sees a problem here? (Score:2)
"Deutsche Bahn recently sent letters to all three U.S. search engine operators asking them to remove the hyperlinks to the online copies of two articles from the German-language left-wing extremist publication, Radikal, which has been outlawed in Germany."
Outlawed? I had no idea that an entire publication could be made illegal in that country. But then it is not too suprising considering the fact that they outlaw anything and everything to do with the Nazi era just like France does. Nevermind the fact that armbands with swastika's on them can't hurt anyone. I'm of the strong opinion that reminders of the Nazi era should be kept around and carefully studied so that the next time a similar group, such as Scientology, comes around the people will know it for what it is.
If you live in the US, be glad. Our country may not be perfect, but at least here attempts to silence political views have to be done quietly and covertly rather than through direct and obvious government action.
The irony! (Score:2)
US equivalent (Score:2, Insightful)
In the US, nuclear materials are transported by road. Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if you posted accurate information on the route information, security procedures, and instructions on how to sabotage such a transport here. Do you really believe the FBI wouldn't be knocking on your door? In the current climate, you'd probably simply disappear in some US "holding cell" somewhere, not to be heard from for months or years.
Just to piss off Slashteens... (Score:2)
Censorship doesn't really solve the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more of a general rant than about the specifics of this case, but since the discussion has veered into general free speech issues, I think it's appropriate.
Thanks to the DMCA and similar restrictions, publishing information on cracking dongles [dictionary.com] (hardware keys for software) is basically illegal. Concrete details on how to crack a dongle definately is. The people putting up information on cracking dongles usually do so for the sole purpose of encouraging others to use illegal copies of software. Clearly the dominant use of this information is criminal.
So what's the harm in censoring this speech?
Well, several years ago I was asked to investigate adding copy protection to a new software product [archive.org] (now defunct). My initial research focused on "respectable" publications on the subject. I found almost nothing useful. If the information I found was to be believed, dongles were practically impossible to defeat. So I extended my search to cracker sites. Now I found something. I discovered that all dongle technologies have been defeated on a case by case basis. I discovered which dongle technologies were trivial to defeat and which were very hard to defeat. I learned specific, concrete weaknesses and arguments for and against dongles. With this information I was able to provide solid information for my employers to use to make a decision.
Let's say that the information on dongle cracking had been removed from the web. Well, my research would have been mostly fruitless. I would have had to largely rely on the misleading claims of the manufacturers themselves and reviews that didn't make serious attempts to defeat the dongles. However, the crackers would still have access to the information, passed around via instant messaging, password protected ftp, email, and other techniques. Dongles would still be insecure, but I wouldn't be able to make reasoned decisions about them.
Re:What were the articles about? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:subsidiaries (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you mean by "a company such as Google"? If you mean "a company which is popular with geeks and Slashdotters" - well, you're right, in that some of the shine may gradually rub off their geek-friendly, free-speech protecting image. OTOH, plenty of large well-known corporations do business with China, say, or in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,.. ( insert your favourite repressive non-democratic regime...) IBM organised the Holocaust [google.com], you know, and Cisco built and support the Great Firewall of China [google.com] (and who knows who supplies the software tools that pull out Falun Gong-related email from the wire and queue a request for the secret police to pay the poster a visit at 4am?) (actually, it's probably Free software: but that's morally defensible, in that the Free software community are not getting rich supporting repression.)
Re:subsidiaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?
There goes your "free speech"...
q.e.d.
Thank you and now mod me down to oblivion for beeing a german nazi or whatever!
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2, Interesting)
I did not confuse Deutsche Bahn with the German government. I was worried that German law enables Deutsche Bahn to file this lawsuit and expect to win it.
You're probably right, and that is a sad fact. Unfortunately, there is presently an overwhelming psuedo-patriotism in the United States today. These monkey spanks act without thought and support Ashcroft et al in their pursuit of limiting our freedom -- which is the most unpatriotic thing one could do.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
which is the most unpatriotic thing one could do.
Questioning the patriotism of people you disagree with pretty much ends discussion on any topic. Someone could argue with equal logic that the people who oppose Ashcroft the most are the terrorists. Therefore, people like yourself who oppose Ashcroft support the terrorists.
Insofar as the threat of terrorism is real, it poses a real limitation on our freedom. The question is: do the measures proposed by Ashcroft reduce the threat of terrorism enough to compensate for the loss of freedom that fighting terrorism entails? When the question is framed this way, the debate is over what approach leads to the minimum loss of freedom.
One can take either side in this debate without being a traitor.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:4, Funny)
8 Steps to Terrorism
1. Learn to wiggle a yoke without crash.
2. Let pilot take off.
3. Hijack plane.
4. Follow a hiway to a city.
5. Point at tallest building.
6. Try to keep the plane level.
7.
Hang on, there's someone at the door, I'll post the other 2 in a minute
Re:subsidiaries (Score:3, Interesting)
Free speech is not a blanket clause to let you say whatever you want.
The first amendment is still bound within the confines of the law. For example, it's illegal to threaten the lives of certain government officials. No first amendment argument is gonna help there.
The FBI might go after said site. They might go after sites with similar content, in hopes of getting to a network behind it. But I highly doubt they would go after Google for merely indexing it. That's like suing the phone company for listing a criminal in the phone book.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:4, Interesting)
True. This wouldn't happen in the USA. It's like suing Napster for providing the infrastructure to share songs... oh wait... damn.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:3, Interesting)
Phones have lots of uses. So does Google. Although I imagine xs4all has more uses than just posting anarchist links, and they lost, so what do I know.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?
In a word, no.
I would expect the FBI to talk to the owner of the site, find out what is going on in the person's mind, and determin if this person is a hazard to anyone else. But the person / group has the right to say what ever they want. That's why we have these hate groups running around in the open for the most part. they can be bigots and be open about their bigotry.
As far as 'free speech' goes, the Supreme Court just allowed virtual kiddie porn (and granted the law was over reaching, effecting medical texts and other beneficial forms of expressions as well, which is why it was struck down, but I digress) to exist, and we really try not to say what can be and want can not be said, but more importantly what the social constraints of what is being said, and why (just covering my ass with the shouting of 'Fire' in a theater). This is why the 'Anarchist's Cook Book' is legal and for sale here, along with books on how to make drugs, modify guns, etc, etc, etc.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2, Informative)
The really funny thing is that this is all documented very well in any number of books at your local public library, like The Running Man [wikipedia.com] (for the crashing) and various other true and fictional books to describe how to do the hijacking itself. The average American has seen plenty of movies that involve airplane hijackings; figuring out how to do it yourself (note: this is not something I'm advocating here) would not be that difficult. Especially if you don't even use guns to do it.
In the U.S. you can still buy The Anarchist's Cookbook [fortunecity.com] even! But you may have to go to court to defend that right, just like xs4all is in this case. So there is no absolute freedom of speech without at least the money to back it up.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
Hell, if they can get in trouble for shutting down the so-called Nuremberg List, I can see the FBI at least hesitating before going after such a site.
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet
Security via obscurity does not work. Your example is very flawed. This exact thing happened and I bet the the idea did not come from a search of Google on the internet. Had the idea of this nature been made more public then it would have opened peoples eyes to this fact and maybe something would have been done before hand to prevent it. If the German railway has a bad design and is open to attack, it will be attacked by a motivated individual. Hiding the flaw from the "general" public does not stop this. If you were a frequent user of the German railroad don't you think you should have the right to know about this?
Re:subsidiaries (Score:3, Interesting)
Did the September 11th hijackers visit such a helpful web site to learn how to hijack planes? No? Then what harm can putting the information up have? The bad guys already know. Can putting the information up potentially help? Certainly. I wish more bad guys would put their evil plans up on the web. Then the FBI could read the documents, identify the security weaknesses the bad guys are planning on using and fix the security weaknesses.
Criminals are perfectly capable and willing to spread censored information amoung themselves. After all, if you've decided to sacrifice your life to kill innocents, what's going to stop you from making some photocopies?
Re:subsidiaries (Score:3, Informative)
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
So in theory you cannot publish instructions on how to make TNT, nitroglycerine or Mercury Fluminate in the UK. In practice you can find them in the CRC handbook. Same goes for the majority of other "terrorist practices".
These laws are written in a blanket fashion, but usually, they are used only against someone who is specifically enciting to use the knowledge for terror/vandalism purposes. Which is the case here.
This does not make these laws any less stupid. For example, if the law is followed, the entire history of the resistance in Europe during World War II should be prohibited. Quite a few German trains went off the track during those years. Using similar methods. Right? So Europe did not resist german occupation. Right? No trains went down. Right?
Wrong...
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
Not to mention all episodes of McGyver
Re:subsidiaries (Score:3, Insightful)
Hu?
In wich world do you live?
German Constitution Article 5: Everybody has the right to distribute and express his OPINION freely as well as to inform himself freely. [...]
Note: free speach is expressing your OPINION. And it is getting free access to the OPINIONS of other people.
Free speach is NOT a detailed instruction in "HOW TO KILL PEOPLE", "HOW TO DESTROY OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY" and "HOW TO RECRUIT TERRORISTS".
If a certain piece of paper with letters on it is free speach or an illegal encaurae of terrorism is a descission of a court.
I doub that you can call a descission of a court censorship.
Better you read the article, and make yourself an opinion, instead of jumping on the train of dumb comments
I fully support banning such stuff from the internet, exactly as I support banning child porn from the internet. But thats only my opinion.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:subsidiaries (Score:2)
No, I can talk about security arrangements at the pentagon as much as I want, assuming I can find them out. That is the hard part, and I can only think of two (general) ways to find out, and both are illegal. First is the break in, and watch what happens. (you will get arrested, but if you get your information back to your orginization perhaps eventially they get someone in, and then can publish how). The other is to interview those who work in the pentagon, who are prohibited from talking about it, it would be legal for me to talk about it, but those who told me would get in trouble.
And without knowing a thing about their arrangements I can assure everyone that they change things constantly to keep security as strong as possibal, and should they suspect someone knows enough about arrangements to bypass them, they will change that immeadiatly.
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, you should read the article, it answers most of your questions.
They already asked google to take it down the hyperlinks and cached copies, but they didn't, so now they're suing
It's a tough situation : a handbook on how to destroy rail tracks is hardly worth fighting for - but even in those instances, freedom of speech must be absolute
but it sucks having to do it over some dangerous wingnuts' propaganda...
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need Freedom of Speech protections to protect Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website. We don't need them to protect Ed Jones's "The Taliban suck" page. The wingnuts are the people testing the bounds of free speech, and they're the ones who let us know how much of it we can count on.
Some argue that people like this are actually a threat to speech, by inciting the government to crack down so regularly. Personally, I take the opinion that your average government would simply attempt to regulate even less controversial speech-- things like "steal music" or "this politician sucks"-- if they didn't have the wingnuts to keep them constantly tied up in court.
PS I realize we're talking about a private company, in a country without all of the free speech protections of the US. Nonetheless, speech protections are important to us all, and should be fought for no matter where they're threatened. Particularly on the net, where one country's silly laws can potentially be applied to everyone on the planet.
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:2)
Sounds pretty clear from this slashdotter's comments [slashdot.org] that Germany does have much the same free speech protections as the US, at least in terms of their Constitution.
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:2)
Darned close, yes, but there have always been some things you couldn't do. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example. Distributing child pornography is still quite illegal. Telling somebody to go kill other people or destroy property is likewise outlawed. And of course, there have always been restrictions against libel and slander.
That's the way it's always been. Freedom of speech was never absolute, nor was it intended to cover such acts. Deconstructionist interpretations of the First Ammendment can't change that.
Whether the limitations apply to this case might be open to debate. Personally, I'm content to let the parties settle it themselves.
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, don't forget that those examples are not limitations of speech. They are limitations of acts that may be commited through the mechanism of speech. It would be perfectly legal to yell "Fire" in an ampitheatre being used for a lecture at a firefighters convention. I see naked children on TV regularly, but they're not being sexually exploited - they're in diaper commercials. Libel and slander are just that - libel and slander, not any particular speech.
We make laws against inciting riots, exploitation of children, and spreading malicious untruths about people. We do not directly limit speech. This is an important disinction that too few people recognize.
*sigh* .. not the wrong "Fire" in theater argument (Score:4, Informative)
That is a fallacious argument. You might want to read this to see why.
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:www.fatalbli
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:3, Interesting)
but it sucks having to do it over some dangerous wingnuts' propaganda...
As I understand it the the censored article was a descrition of a rather sophisticated form of sabotage. They trigger the railway system's built in fail-safe mechanisms and the trains slow to a few MPH. Minimal damage that actually results in safer than normal operation.
You can disagree with their position. You can arrest them when they sabotage equipment. But you have to respect their commitment to safety.
-
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what rights do you have in the US that I don't have in the UK? At least I can discuss ROT-13 in a public place without getting sent to jail.
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:2, Insightful)
document is not illegal in Holland, and is the property of one of XS4ALL's customers. So far German authorities have not contacted XS4ALL, no official requests where made to remove these documents from our server.
I don't know about you, but it sounds like the documents in question are not illegal in the Netherlands (not much seems to be illegal in the netherlands).
Here is also a clip from the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
Now where is the 'not legal' part of all this? The only place i can see that happen is the party that is in Germany.. I haven't heard of this issue until today so I may not know all there is to know about it, but I did read parts of the article that don't seem to corrolate with what your saying...
Re:Security by obscurity.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's VERY important to remember two things...
Security by obscurity is bad when dealing when computers because computers by their very nature makes it much easier to root out patterns and obscure points of interest.
Security by obscurity in the physical world is a de facto standard and is paramount to many security issues. For example, like it or not, our goverment uses plain-jane trucks to move radioactive elements, high explosives, deadly biological materials, and large volumes of currency throughout our nation.
By not having the routes, the trucking schedules and payload information, a high degree of security is available. This is exactly security through obscurity. Would you want this information to be available? I know I sure wouldn't.
Imagine the cost (because of the physical security requirements) and the greatly increased odds of something bad happening in the event that this information were generally known to the public. I can easily imagine bad things for any number of reasons if this were public information. Since it's not, everything from protects (increasing the odds of accidents) to terrorist attacks are avoided, and this is just the short list.
In short, in the real world, security through obscurity is not only important, it's paramount to our national security...don't believe me, ask NTSA, NSA, CIA and the FBI as well as just about any other law enforcement agency. It's only with computers that this should be avoided; as a rule of thumb...
Re:Who's laws are Google breaking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hitler spewing anti-semetic statements is free speech. And as much as I and most other civilized, educated people would disagree with such statements, we can not censure someone else and not expect to be censured ourselves.
The Nazi regime rounding up and murdering millions IS NOT free speech it is murder. There is a distinct difference between opinion and action.
Allow me to use another example to illustrate the point. Matthew Lesko is this guy who advertises a book on American daytime television. He annoys me to NO end. And I often mention to my friends, "Gosh that guy is annoying, I'm surprised someone hasn't beaten him." By making this statement, does that mean that I'm going to hunt this guy down and give him a thrashing? No, of course not, because I understand the difference between word and deed. Would I support someone hunting him down and giving him a thrashing; no, while nice in concept, violence is not the answer. Not to mention that Assault is against the law (for good reason)
In summary, the right to free speech is a road that goes both ways. Not only do people have the right to espouse any opinion they have, but others have the right to promote equally opposite views on the same subject. Besides, do you want to be the person responsible for deciding which opinions are "correct" and which ones aren't?
-Runz