Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TETENAL · Jan 19, 2006, 12:31 PM

The German Wikipedia-Site wikipedia.de has been closed by a court order. The Wikimedia Association who runs the German Wikpedia is no longer allowed to link to wikipedia.org.

The reason is an article about the hacker Boris Floricic aka "Tron" which mentions the persons full name. Boris Floricic's parents sued Wikipedia claiming that this violates their son's personality rights. Some details can be found in the English article about Tron (hacker).

What do you think? Do personality rights trump over the right of Wikipedia to publish articles about known people?

euchomai · Jan 19, 2006, 01:13 PM

That is just crazy, he is also listed in newspapers all over the world too. Can they go after them too?

If something is public record, it is exactly that, public.

Millennium · Jan 19, 2006, 01:17 PM

I don't understand. What are "personality rights"?

TETENAL · Jan 19, 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

What are "personality rights"?

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

Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to privacy, or to keep one's image and likeness from being exploited without permission or contractual compensation, and the right to publicity use of one's identity, which is similar to the use of a trademark.

In this case Wikipedia is publicly using the identity of "Tron" by publicly using his full name.

Millennium · Jan 19, 2006, 01:33 PM

This sounds more like trademark law, with the word "privacy" artificially inserted to try and attract privacy buffs.

Bottom line: I don't see these as legitimate rights at all. Privacy is one thing, but when the truth is a matter of public record, why should there be any right to keep people from telling it?

turtle777 · Jan 19, 2006, 01:33 PM

What's up with the German's ? Sounds like total crap to me !

TETENAL · Jan 19, 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

This sounds more like trademark law

I don't think it has anything to do with trademark. It's a personal name, and you don't do "trade" under that name (at least most people don't), yet you still have the right to privacy. Newspapers can't spell out your full name always. If you are a victim of a crime for example they should respect your privacy.

Originally Posted by Millennium

Bottom line: I don't see these as legitimate rights at all.

Well, the court thought the privacy violation was serious enough to shut down the whole wikipedia.de site.

They even sent a court order to wikipedia.org in Florida (at first they accidently sent it to Russia), but so far wikipedia.org did not yet react since apparently you can still read his full name in the article on wikipedia.org.

turtle777 · Jan 19, 2006, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Well, the court thought the privacy violation was serious enough to shut down the whole wikipedia.de site.

What a bunch of balloney. Tron's real name can be found all over the web. Once the cat is out bag, it's too late. A petty court order can't change that.

analogika · Jan 19, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

This sounds more like trademark law, with the word "privacy" artificially inserted to try and attract privacy buffs.

Bottom line: I don't see these as legitimate rights at all. Privacy is one thing, but when the truth is a matter of public record, why should there be any right to keep people from telling it?

Privacy rights are the reason private details DON'T BECOME public record in many, many cases in Germany that Americans wouldn't think twice over.

Arrests, for example - names are withheld (by law) until an actual conviction. German privacy laws attempt to regulate personal data protection and an individual's right to influence how he is presented in public media. It is an extension that covers the area between slander/public humiliation and data theft/misuse.

Doofy · Jan 19, 2006, 03:11 PM

So when are the German authorities going to firewall the whole place so folks can't simply go look at the article(s) on the US Wiki?

undotwa · Jan 19, 2006, 03:17 PM

You can still access the German wiki, just not from wikipedia.de. You have to go to de.wikipedia.org.

TETENAL · Jan 19, 2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So when are the German authorities going to firewall the whole place so folks can't simply go look at the article(s) on the US Wiki?

Maybe the US wikipedia will follow the court order and remove the name. That would solve the problem.

Mastrap · Jan 19, 2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Maybe the US wikipedia will follow the court order and remove the name. That would solve the problem.

Why on earth should a US entity care about the laws outside the US?

CharlesS · Jan 19, 2006, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

What's up with the German's ? Sounds like total crap to me !

What's up with the German's what?

PurpleGiant · Jan 19, 2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

What's up with the German's what?

He must have got distracted before finishing the sentence.

analogika · Jan 19, 2006, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So when are the German authorities going to firewall the whole place so folks can't simply go look at the article(s) on the US Wiki?

Not their jurisdiction.

Point is they had to issue a temporary restraining order on behalf of the parents. The legal status is clarified AFTER the order, with the priority set upon protecting personal rights.

A restraining order has also been sent to the American wikipedia site, but that probably won't mean ****, since personality rights enjoy no protection in America.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_%28hacker%29

porieux · 06:02 AM

...

turtle777 · Jan 19, 2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_%28hacker%29

18 changes today, so far.

So which is the correct version ?

Kerrigan · Jan 19, 2006, 04:03 PM

Whenever something goes wrong in the world, it always is connected to America, isn't it?

turtle777 · Jan 19, 2006, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Whenever something goes wrong in the world, it always is connected to America, isn't it?

analogika · Jan 19, 2006, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Whenever something goes wrong in the world, it always is connected to America, isn't it?

What's YOUR ****ing problem then?

Doofy · Jan 19, 2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by porieux

Gee this action has only made more people aware of the person's name, who wouldn't have even cared otherwise...

Indeed. Until I read this thread, I had no idea that the guy existed. Now I'm convinced there's a Stasi plot to take over the World with encrypted ISDN phones and aliens and stuff.

Chuckit · Jan 19, 2006, 04:47 PM

People have no right not to be talked about. That's stupid.

- - e r i k - - · Jan 19, 2006, 05:05 PM

Oh The Irony. Now I know about Boris Floricic, the hacker. Before I didn't. How exactly is this helping his privacy?

shunt · Jan 20, 2006, 02:06 AM

I was gonna say personality rights is the German law that forbids German citizens from the right to have a personality.

...but I'm soooo glad I didn't say that.

analogika · Jan 20, 2006, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

People have no right not to be talked about. That's stupid.

People DO have a right not to be talked about in a certain way.

You try setting up a website slandering George Clooney by, say, claiming that he murdered his Mexican housemaid.

See how long you last.

Is that stupid?

Doofy · Jan 20, 2006, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

People DO have a right not to be talked about in a certain way.

You try setting up a website slandering George Clooney by, say, claiming that he murdered his Mexican housemaid.

See how long you last.

Is that stupid?

Since Clooney is, AFAIK, still alive, it's different.

These laws are protecting the privacy of a dead bloke. Why? Are we to assume that the powers that be don't want people digging too deep into the circumstances of his death? Or does the law cover talking about folks like Hitler (who's also dead and presumably entitled to some privacy)?

badidea · Jan 20, 2006, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Why on earth should a US entity care about the laws outside the US?

To show good will and respect!?

Mastrap · Jan 20, 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by badidea

To show good will and respect!?

For a decision they disagree with?

TETENAL · Jan 20, 2006, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Or does the law cover talking about folks like Hitler (who's also dead and presumably entitled to some privacy)?

Of course it doesn't. Hitler is a historic person, so you can talk about him all the way you want and even private stuff like when he met Braun etc. is of public interest. Clooney is also a public figure and you can report about him, but he still has some privacy. For example what he does privately at his home is nobody's business.

Both these people chose to be public figures. That's the difference. Boris F. didn't choose to become one (he did so mostly after and due to his mysterious death) and while he was known in computer/hacker circles he always used his nickname Tron. That's why his parents want his name to be deleted from Wikipedia.

ShotgunEd · Jan 20, 2006, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

People DO have a right not to be talked about in a certain way.

You try setting up a website slandering George Clooney by, say, claiming that he murdered his Mexican housemaid.

See how long you last.

Is that stupid?

Terrible example.

Since the claim is false, then you are commiting slander (or is it libel since its printed?).

Associating someone's name with an alias (which happens to be true) is neither slanderous nor libellous.

badidea · Jan 20, 2006, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

For a decision they disagree with?

No, I meant that in general...

Chuckit · Jan 20, 2006, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

People DO have a right not to be talked about in a certain way.

You try setting up a website slandering George Clooney by, say, claiming that he murdered his Mexican housemaid.

See how long you last.

Is that stupid?

It is neither stupid nor relevant. You're talking about defamation of character, not just talking about someone.

turtle777 · Jan 20, 2006, 12:26 PM

Uh, no, wait

-t