×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Deutsche Bahn to Sue Google

timothy posted about 12 years ago | from the but-not-in-the-u.s. dept.

Censorship 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

526 comments

Sex at work (-1)

GafTheHorseInTears (565684) | about 12 years ago | (#3357614)

A while back, at a job previous to the one I have now, I had an ongoing sexual relationship with one of my co-workers. When she first started there, I thought she was cute, but then I found out that she already had a boyfriend. They had moved here from another state and were living together. Turns out, though, that she was a cheating little slut, and after a few months we were fucking on a regular basis.

Generally, we would do it at my place after work, or we'd just go out for a drive somewhere, park in a remote spot, and fuck in the car. Occasionally we would fuck at work, after everyone else was gone, usually on the couch in our boss' office. Sometimes, though, her boyfriend would go out of town. While he was gone, I'd be at his apartment every night, fucking his girlfriend's brains out in his own bed (and in his shower, on his couch, on his floor, in his kitchen...)

Sometimes when we didn't have any condoms with us, I would pull out and come all over her stomach, or on her ass. She really got off on that sort of thing. I came on her face once, too; not on purpose, she was just sucking my cock and happened to pull her mouth away at the wrong time, but she really seemed to enjoy it anyways.

In any case, eventually I left for a different job, and our relationship ended. The funniest thing of all is that she ended up marrying the guy she had been living with. I bet the guy never even found out what a fucking whore he was marrying.

Butt Shit Sex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357622)

Give me some Scheisse pr0n, Right Now!

Just out of curiosity... (0, Interesting)

L-Wave (515413) | about 12 years ago | (#3357623)

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

Re:Just out of curiosity... (1)

sopuli (459663) | about 12 years ago | (#3357668)

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

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

Re:Just out of curiosity... (1)

TeaDaemon (544727) | about 12 years ago | (#3357669)

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

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

Re:Just out of curiosity... (2, Funny)

-brazil- (111867) | about 12 years ago | (#3357699)

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

agreed (1)

koekepeer (197127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357674)

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

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

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

Odd parent post (1)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | about 12 years ago | (#3357680)

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

Re:Just out of curiosity... (5, Insightful)

Prop (4645) | about 12 years ago | (#3357708)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Just out of curiosity... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357766)

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

Re:Just out of curiosity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357732)

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

Important Stuff: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357624)

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a \ a
t `. : t
s` \ s
e \ / / \\\ -- \\ : e
x \ \/ --~~ ~-- \ x
* \ \-~ ~-\ *
g \ \ .--------.___\ g
o \ \// ((> \ o
a \ . C ) ((> / a
t /\ C )/ \ (> / t
s / /\ C) EMAD (> / \ s
e ( C__)\___/ // _/ / \ e
x \ \\// (/ x
* \ \) `---- --' *
g \ \ / / g
o / \ o
a / \ \ a
t / / \ t
s / / \/\/ s
e / e
x x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

FIRST POST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357625)

i am good, hahahha

Eric

so sad... (-1, Offtopic)

SylentBobb (515192) | about 12 years ago | (#3357628)

Dude...you gotta stop spending 4+ hours a day watching porn. At least then you probably wouldn't have thrown in so much cliche bullshit as to give away your eternal state of virginity.

Google's defense... (3, Funny)

kzinti (9651) | about 12 years ago | (#3357629)

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

Germans will believe that, right?

Re:Google's defense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357638)

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

that is *not* funny (1)

koekepeer (197127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357704)

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

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

Re:that is *not* funny (2)

dinivin (444905) | about 12 years ago | (#3357726)

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

Dinivin

Not again (2, Interesting)

cholokoy (265199) | about 12 years ago | (#3357630)

Are there people related to scientologists? :P

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

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

Re:Not again (4, Insightful)

SyntheticTruth (17753) | about 12 years ago | (#3357785)

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

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

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

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

subsidiaries (1, Interesting)

mbbac (568880) | about 12 years ago | (#3357632)

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

Re:subsidiaries (1)

bmongar (230600) | about 12 years ago | (#3357672)

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

Re:subsidiaries (5, Interesting)

Cally (10873) | about 12 years ago | (#3357687)

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


What do you mean by "a company such as Google"? If you mean "a company which is popular with geeks and Slashdotters" - well, you're right, in that some of the shine may gradually rub off their geek-friendly, free-speech protecting image. OTOH, plenty of large well-known corporations do business with China, say, or in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,.. ( insert your favourite repressive non-democratic regime...) IBM organised the Holocaust [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 (1)

mbbac (568880) | about 12 years ago | (#3357786)

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

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

Re:subsidiaries (4, Insightful)

demon-cw (162676) | about 12 years ago | (#3357691)

First off all the "Deusche Bahn" is AFAIK a private company despite it's name. So it's not germany "outlawing" free speech it's a private company suing another company

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

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

Re:subsidiaries (1)

nagora (177841) | about 12 years ago | (#3357698)

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

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

TWW

Re:subsidiaries (3, Informative)

Tom (822) | about 12 years ago | (#3357700)

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

Re:subsidiaries (2)

arivanov (12034) | about 12 years ago | (#3357777)

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

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

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

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

Wrong...

Re:subsidiaries (3, Insightful)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 12 years ago | (#3357800)

>

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

And the interesting part is... (5, Interesting)

Munelight (192694) | about 12 years ago | (#3357633)

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

Have these people not been paying attention lately?

Re:And the interesting part is... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357695)

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

Re:And the interesting part is... (1)

dryueh (531302) | about 12 years ago | (#3357697)

Have these people not been paying attention lately?

Not to slashdot, anyway (sic).

Deutschland hat angst von Google! Schade!

Re:And the interesting part is... (2)

petis (139263) | about 12 years ago | (#3357728)

> Have these people not been paying attention lately?

:-) Probably not.

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

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

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

Re:And the interesting part is... (1)

sugrshack (519761) | about 12 years ago | (#3357796)

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

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

What were the articles about? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 12 years ago | (#3357634)

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

Re:What were the articles about? (2, Informative)

Munelight (192694) | about 12 years ago | (#3357653)

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

Re:What were the articles about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357667)

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

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

Re:What were the articles about? (1)

cholokoy (265199) | about 12 years ago | (#3357675)

From the infoworld article:

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


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

Re:What were the articles about? (1)

Joakim A (313708) | about 12 years ago | (#3357676)

It's a newspaper, headline says it all:

Radikal

A newspaper from - and for the radikal / autonomous left

Re:What were the articles about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357679)

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

Re:What were the articles about? (1)

sopuli (459663) | about 12 years ago | (#3357720)

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



This [216.239.51.100] (Google cache) is what they don't want you to read.

Wayback (2, Interesting)

benjymous (69893) | about 12 years ago | (#3357635)

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

Re:Wayback (1)

beebware (149208) | about 12 years ago | (#3357760)

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

Not the cache. (5, Informative)

perlyking (198166) | about 12 years ago | (#3357636)

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

Re:Not the cache. (1)

GnomeKing (564248) | about 12 years ago | (#3357693)

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

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

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

Re:Not the cache. (2, Interesting)

benjymous (69893) | about 12 years ago | (#3357738)

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

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

More proof that there is NO perfect country (2)

bluGill (862) | about 12 years ago | (#3357637)

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 (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 12 years ago | (#3357683)

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

You could argue that... (1)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | about 12 years ago | (#3357755)

once someone uses that info to steal a flask of nuclear material and lets it off in Los Angeles (hey might as well do it somewhere useful :-), some americans might argue less forcefully for free speech... I am unsure on this myself though.

However this is the country where you can get denied the vote (a few years ago) or locked up just depending on your ancestry (afghan is not a good one to have at the moment) so I'm not sure the constitution is always followed 100%. Hey, according to the constitution you have not been at war since Korea (?), but there are a lot of dead people who might disagree (well, if they weren't dead of course!)

Of course, if the govt. of a country was sneaky, they could publish bomb-making manuals themselves, with a few slight minor mistakes in them ;-)

What about the right for safe passage on rail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357763)

I prefer that to being allowed to post instructions on terrorims/sabotage on the Internet.

Not suing in America (3, Interesting)

blankmange (571591) | about 12 years ago | (#3357639)

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

zyxwvut (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357644)

The duck flies at midnight

Forbidden Access (3, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | about 12 years ago | (#3357651)

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



Save money- vote Republican

Re:Forbidden Access (0)

ReluctantBadger (550830) | about 12 years ago | (#3357706)


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

Re:Forbidden Access (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | about 12 years ago | (#3357761)

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

Re:Forbidden Access (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357718)

dude don't you find this 'vote repulican' comment inapropriate here? This is in no way related to the storie!!!

Dont they realize... (4, Interesting)

bludstone (103539) | about 12 years ago | (#3357654)

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

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

Fools.

Maccy-Dee (-1, Offtopic)

ReluctantBadger (550830) | about 12 years ago | (#3357660)

"Maccy-Dee" by ReluctantBadger
(To be sung to "Let it be" by The Beatles)

When I'm hungry and my stomach grumbles,
Twenty nuggets are bought for me
Three quid for a value meal, Maccy-Dee.

And in every hour of hunger,
Salty fries and Mac Flurry
Breakfast, lunch and dinner, Maccy-Dee
Maccy-Dee, Maccy-Dee
I've got indegestion, Maccy-Dee

And when you see that drive-thru sign,
While driving along with me,
Friendly staff and service, Maccy-Dee
For though we may be shortly parted
While you pop in to take a pee,
There will be an answer, Maccy-Dee
Maccy-Dee, Maccy-Dee, YEAH!
Fast food is the answer, Maccy-Dee

And after the pubs get rowdy
The Golden Arches call to me
McChicken meal heals my sorrow, Maccy-Dee
I like to order far too much
I've been accused of gluttony
Two more chocolate milkshakes, Maccy-Dee
Maccy-Dee, Maccy-Dee
Breakfast, lunch and dinner, Maccy-Dee
Maccy-Dee, Maccy-Dee
I've got indegestion, Maccy-Dee

Re:Maccy-Dee (1)

buzban (227721) | about 12 years ago | (#3357678)

Fast food is the answer, Maccy-Dee

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

The Dutch have learned (1, Flamebait)

Lucky_Pierre (175635) | about 12 years ago | (#3357664)

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

Bush will jump on the bandwagon (1)

SmoothOperator (300942) | about 12 years ago | (#3357772)

I hate to stir up a hornet's nest here, but with all the anit-terrorist paranoia around the world, this will have the American government screaming "terrorism" and we'll see Uncle Sam's B-52s, and not the Panzer Division, heading in the direction of Google's offices, not the mention Radikal's offices. But seriously, freedom of speech might get a kick in the butt if the American anti-terrorist campaign gets on the side of the German railway, and teams up against Google.

Why Yahoo? (2)

Cutriss (262920) | about 12 years ago | (#3357673)

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

But (1)

Manlobbi (568779) | about 12 years ago | (#3357677)

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

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

Re:But (1)

-brazil- (111867) | about 12 years ago | (#3357727)

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

Contents (2, Informative)

hoofie (201045) | about 12 years ago | (#3357684)

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

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

Re:Contents (1)

Puggs (562473) | about 12 years ago | (#3357750)

Damn right about the UK movements...

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

Re:Contents (5, Funny)

mccalli (323026) | about 12 years ago | (#3357794)

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

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

Cheers,
Iam

Lawsuit? (2)

suwalski (176418) | about 12 years ago | (#3357685)

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

Re:Lawsuit? (1)

pbrammer (526214) | about 12 years ago | (#3357741)

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

Censorship (4, Insightful)

Wise Dragon (71071) | about 12 years ago | (#3357690)

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

can of worms? (1)

vagnerr (214527) | about 12 years ago | (#3357692)

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

Why so sure the US would be any different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357703)

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

Security by obscurity.. (1)

software_non_olet (567318) | about 12 years ago | (#3357713)

..and order by law.

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

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

Re:Security by obscurity.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357756)

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

umm, translator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357716)

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

These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (2, Interesting)

Qbertino (265505) | about 12 years ago | (#3357722)

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

Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (4, Insightful)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | about 12 years ago | (#3357787)

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

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

Re:These "Autonome" have a point, but ... (1)

software_non_olet (567318) | about 12 years ago | (#3357790)

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

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

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

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

Who's laws are Google breaking? (1)

RunzWithScissors (567704) | about 12 years ago | (#3357724)

If Google is a US company with all their assets on US soil, do German laws, like outlawing the radical paper who published the article in question, apply?

I think not. Isn't that the same argument that members of the EU made when the MPAA tried to extradite the writers of the Linux DVD driver to the US on copyright infringement charges? (Not that I support the MPAA in any way, shape, or form on that decision.) But the precident has been set that one countries laws do not apply to citizens or corporations in another country. Now if Google had assets in Germany it would be a different story.

I think it would be really cool if Google fought this on the basis of free speech. Yes I realize that directions on sabataging the railway system are probably not the best thing to protect under the right to free speech, but it is our duty to protect the rights of people to express their views no matter how vehemently we oppose them.

Just my 2.

-Runz

Re:Who's laws are Google breaking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357733)

Read the article and you'll see they are sueing the German subsidiaries, not the American parent companies.

Suing the wrong people (1)

pbrammer (526214) | about 12 years ago | (#3357730)

Why don't they sue the content providers? Get them to follow the instructions at: Google's Site Removal Instructions [google.com] . After all, I can still get to the site even after Google removes them.

There are also instructions in there to keep the page from being in cache...

It sounds pretty easy to me to get the content removed from Google by using the process that is set up to do so, and it also sounds like they will fail at their attempt to win the suit against Google.

Go after the people that host the content. It's not Google's concern that they have links pointing to "illegal" content...

I hate when I talk to my computer... (1)

rbeattie (43187) | about 12 years ago | (#3357759)


I'm reading the article and I get to the part where the German says "... and we don't want that."

And I say out loud, "Yeah, well fuck you."

My wife, who was sitting next to me, got a little upset. Gotta stop talking to my computer...

-Russ

They need to fire their admin (2)

JPriest (547211) | about 12 years ago | (#3357762)

If they had sensitive documents that were harmful to the company what were they doing on a public web server with read permissions and no access restrictions in the first place? _I_ think the company should be liable to pay legal charges and damages to Google.

Re:They need to fire their admin (0)

hettb (569863) | about 12 years ago | (#3357791)

>If they had sensitive documents that were harmful to the company what were they doing on a public web server with read permissions and no access restrictions in the first place? _I_ think the company should be liable to pay legal charges and damages to Google.

Hello? From the article:

The German national railway operator will file suit Wednesday against Google because the company's search engine provides links to a Web site that offers instructions on how to sabotage railway systems, Deutsche Bahn said Tuesday. Lawsuits against Yahoo and AltaVista also are being prepared.

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

These arent't the Bundesbahn's pages, and they never hosted them. Next time, read the article before posting and don't make a fool of yourself.

First Hug A Root Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357780)

Please, hug a root today.

next.... (2)

room101 (236520) | about 12 years ago | (#3357781)

next on the list is Slashdot, and anyone else that has run this story, link to a story that links to the story about....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...