|
Search this group's discussions
|
Ein erstes sinnvolle Statement
|
Eine erste Erklärung über die Gründe der Zensur
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/42597/230304/
Zitat Heather:
"The decision to change the Flickr experience in Germany was never about censorship - it was made to try to ensure that Yahoo! Germany was in compliance with local legal restrictions. In fact, we're all getting really uncomfortable that the words "flickr" and "censorship" are being jammed together with increasing frequency because that is _so far_ from the direction we're trying to move in.
The central problem is that Germany has much more stringent age verification laws than its neighboring countries and specifies much harsher penalties, including jail time, for those with direct responsibility (in our case, it would be our colleagues in the German offices and we're not willing to make a call that has that kind of consequence for them).
Up to the point of launch we had been exploring every possible approach which would allow us to do what makes sense while still operating inside the law. Unfortunately, the solutions did not come together in the way we thought they would.
I know people would like to know exactly what is going on, have a chance to evaluate the internal back and forth, and know all of the reasoning. Unfortunately, that's just not possible. In the end, some of you will trust that we are doing our best and are confident that we'll have a workable system in the future and some of you will not. We'd love to be able to change that reality, but we can't. We've made and admitted to a couple of big mistakes lately, and as many of you have commented, we should have handled this issue differently.
Believe me when I say that we'd rather not make mistakes in the first place, but when we do, take hope in the fact that we always listen, always respond, and often change the system as a direct result of your input. That's the way Flickr rolls, and we never want that to change.
So again, we're not perfect (as much as we'd like to be), but everyone on the team is resourceful, fair-minded and determined to find the solution to this. You'll be the first to know the outcome."
Posted at 7:01PM, 14 June 2007 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
|
Allerdings ist das immer noch recht schwammig und eine Eindeutige Erklärung auf welche Gesetzgebung Bezug genommen wird bleibt aus...
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Das ist ja auch ziemlich egal. Denen muss klar werden, dass die sich selbst ins Bein schießen. Wieso konnten die es nicht einfach bei ner Übersetzung der Seite ins Deutsche belassen und weiter von den Staaten aus operieren? Ob die nun Geld via Paypal oder per Kreditkarte (oder was weiß ich) bekommen, dürfte ja wohl Jacke wie Hose sein.
Wahrscheinlich hat irgend ein dämlicher Controller wieder irgendwas nachgerechnet, was angeblich mehr Umsatz bringt.
Kaum zu glauben, dass jemand so dumm sein kann um einen so erfolgreichen Service so vor die Wand zu fahren. So dilettantisch...
Originally posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
Ethemenanki edited this topic 60 months ago.
|
|
arndalarm: vermutlich darauf:
www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/89348
richterrecht...
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Schwachsinn, bei korrekter Eingruppierung der Bilder die moderate sein dürfte bekommen Kinder an jedem Kiosk auf den Titelbildern von SuperIllu das gleiche zu sehen. Es gibt genug Fotodienste in Deutschland, die sowas zeigen. Hier ein Beispiel:
Hier ein Beispiel da braucht man nicht mal einen Account für. Und ist von Stern bisher dafür jemand in Knast gewandert ???
view.stern.de/fc/keyword/Nackt/
Da hat wohl irgendein Juristenfrischling direkt von der Hochschule sich wichtig machen wollen.
Oder ein Ami hat mal wieder deutsche Gesetze nach amerkanischen Moralmaßstäben beurteilt.
Originally posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
Frabi65 edited this topic 60 months ago.
|
|
Can someone from Germany please clarify me something about Flickr statement as I am preparing another a text to explain to other groups who are still unaware of what is gong on and would like to get my fact straigh?
for what I understood,
- Flickr implemented this censorship *not* because of the content already exists but to protect themselves from the content may possibly exist at some point and could break some law in Germany (although not saying, probably this one dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html or this www.germanlawjournal.com/current_issue.php?id=279 in english) and they have their asses in jail, namely because of the age verification need. And only now because only now they have an office in Germany
Is this correct?
This is not a external reason. It´s a internal handling of a law that does not apply to all the users. Is this correct?
is this www.germanlawjournal.com/current_issue.php?id=279 is the real issue,
- There are age verification
There is already a working and legally accepted age verification available. It is called PostIdent and offered by the German postal service (Deutsche Post). It works by verifying the age of a person by the Deutsche Post.
is this correct?
There are 11 age verification systems in Germany www.jugendschutz.net/avs/avs_systeme/index.html , is this correct?
'd appreciate a quick answer as some newspapers have also been contacted and I'm waiting for the contact back.
thank you.
(it would be nice that this answer wouldn't be deleted as mine was yesterday)
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,488542,00.html
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
-frankNfurter- [deleted] says:
(liest ein mit der materie vertrauter anwalt mit? bitte mithelfen! danke!))
farruska,
"And only now because only now they have an office in Germany Is this correct?"
as far as i can tell, that's precisely the point. i am not a lawyer, though.
"This is not a external reason. It´s a internal handling of a law that does not apply to all the users. Is this correct?"
this definitely appears to be the case.
" There is already a working and legally accepted age verification available. It is called PostIdent and offered by the German postal service (Deutsche Post). It works by verifying the age of a person by the Deutsche Post. is this correct?"
yes, that's absolutely correct.
could anyone with a more profound knowledge of German internet laws jump in for assistance? perhaps even a lawyer?
kann jemand mit expertenwissen in sachen online-recht helfen? vielleicht sogar ein anwalt? falls gewünscht/erforderlich biete ich meine hilfe beim übersetzen an.
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ich dachte immer, daß Flickr als Hoster keine direkten Verpflichtungen hat, präventiv tätig zu werden? Ich bin allerdings auch kein Anwalt ... Interessant, daß die Fotocommunitiy www.fotocommunity.de dieses Problem offensichtlich nicht sieht - und die Firma hat ihren Sitz auch in Deutschland ...
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
frankNfurter, thank you for your fast reply. I will of course wait that someone with legal knowledge of the laws can confirm it too and thank you (or anyoneelse available) in advance for helping with translation.
another question has been crossing my mind but I was afraid to ask as I already read in other places people been called paranoic , but:
if this was implemented because they opened an office here and are afraid of what not even happened, won't this open a door for Flickr (or any other company) to do exactly the same in other european countries they decided to open doors, if those countries some time in the near future also "have more stringent age verification laws than its neighboring countries and specifies much harsher penalties, including jail time, for those with direct responsibility" ?
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ Taurec,
die fotocommunity.de sieht dieses "Problem" sehr wohl und das auch schon seit Anfang an. Versuche einfach mal als Besucher oder Freemember in den "geschützten Bereich" zu gelangen. Geht nicht.
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Tatsächlich, du hast Recht - ich hatte nur mal auf den Aktbereich geklickt und die ganzen Thumbnails gesehen ..
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ich habe das Gefühl, dass Flickr hier ein wenig überreagiert hat. Wenn man nicht angemeldet ist, kann man doch (nach Warnung) alle Bilder sehen?
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
" Wenn man nicht angemeldet ist, kann man doch (nach Warnung) alle Bilder sehen?"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Genau das wundert mich auch ,
was für einen Sinn macht das denn ???
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ich denke, wie es auch in dem Spiegelartikel, der oben referenziert wird steht, dass Flickr/Yahoo es sich einfach gemacht hat.
Wenn es allein um den Jugendschutz geht, ist doch schon allein die Tatsache, dass ich eine Kreditkarte besitze eine Art "Mindestaltersnachweis"
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
2 hours after I asked the first time, I ask again, is there anyone on this group interested in clarifying <a href="Is this not of interest to anyone? www.flickr.com/groups/keine_zensur/discuss/72157600360495...
thank you">this questions and help letting the word to get out to the non-speaking German countries , or is it better not to even bother anymore ?
thank you.
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am outraged about the ignorant way Flickr handles this problem, by not communicating the issue pre-emptively. Also, the idea of filtering to (US imposed) criteria of "moderate" or "restricted" or whatever is conceived as an insult by many Europeans. Flickr, you struck a nerve with us Europeans by asking for self-censorship while imposing bigoted American rules. That's what I call a blatant lack of cross-cultural competence! (now I feel better. ;-)
The real problems, however are much more complex. I found a very interesting article on the website of Germany's most renowned computer ant Internet culture magazine C't (Caution - lots of German legalese).
I am adding a translation of this article below since I suspect that only a minority would understand this article in German (published with friendly permission of Heise Publishing in Germany. Please note that the original article contains pertinent hyperlinks where marked as "Link" in my translation):
**************
EU Commission Challenges German Court Ruling on ISP Liabilities
The German federal government has submitted a number of pertinent rulings of German courts on the liability of hosting and forum providers to the EU commission for so-called notification. This was disclosed by Gerald Spindler, a law professor at the Goettingen University on the conference “Ten Years of Multimedia Legislation in Germany” (see link in original article). Brussels is to check in how far the repeated rulings on provider privileges that have even been issued by the German Federal High Court (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) are in accordance with the rules set up in the E-Commerce Directive (E-Commerce Richtlinie, see link in original article). Arnd Haller, in-house lawyer of Google Germany, has voiced his doubts in this regard: In his view, the BGH has repeatedly expanded the provider’s verification obligation or has insufficiently clarified corresponding rulings of lower-rank courts. So, the spirit of the E-Commerce Directive is “disregarded”.
According to Haller, the “exponentially grown liability risk needs to be reduced” urgently. He further stated that the BGH and lower-order instances had established a “very far-reaching claim to forbearance” in their rulings on internet auctions such as Rolex vs. Ricardo (Link) and Ebay (Link), or in the so-called “forum ruling against Heise Zeitschriften Verlag” (Link). The parties concerned need to perform filtering, partly using manual methods or automatically using keyword analyses. Ebay for example had to assign thousand employees for this task. Also, platform operators are forced to decide themselves as “judges” about the legitimacy of contents. Haller further states that providers or e.g. search engines or systems for user-generated content had by no means been included in the groups eligible for liability privileges. The consequence, he states, are a considerable legal and planning insecurity for the enterprises which at the same time are burdened with high costs, so that Google can only operate certain services such as the controversial book search (Link) based in the US, and that the enterprise abstains from opening any data centres in Germany.
The lawyer Axel Winkler of Engel & Rinkler partners, who is accredited at the BGH, also spoke about a “judicial situation with a lot of question marks”. Providers are being held responsible particularly in the context of so-called “troublemaker liability” and are confronted with removal claims and claims to forbearance. In case these claims do not take effect, then the so-called “assistant liability” would come into effect. The criteria for this are an objectively existing act as an accessory and a conditional intention in relation to the main offence, which needs to comprise the conscience of illegality. Rinkler recommended to the lower and mid level courts to more frequently submit pertinent rulings to the European Court of Law (EuGH, Link) for review. In order to arrive at a “sound settlement” between all parties concerned, it might make sense to occasionally leave out the BGH and to find new starting points for a self-regulation also with the holders of rights.
Spindler referred to numerous open issues in multimedia legislation. As an example, a number of unclear phraseologies had found their way into the controversial tele media law (Telemediengesetz – TMG, Link) with its core regulations on provider liabilities for companies that “predominantly” act as “access providers”. In contrast, the continuation of the EU television directive in the form of a new directive for audio-visual media services introduced the term of “non-linear services”, and the relationship of this new directive to the E-commerce directive is allegedly still open in several respects. Spindler states that the recently initiated evaluation should only be oriented toward the function of providers, and not the transmitted content. Commenting the the notification of liability rulings, the law professor stated that the commission watches German dispensation of justice with a high degree of skepticism and that it could possibly initiate breach of contract proceedings against the Federal Republic.
Originally published at Heise Online, Author: Stefan Krempl, published with friendly permission of Heise Publishers in Germany.
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Noizze Replikk [deleted] says:
Frabi65 - ich glaub nicht, dass man's gleich pauschal als Schwachsinn abtun kann. Unsere Regierung misst mit zweierlei Maß, was das Internet angeht. Denn davor haben die eine Heidenangst. Denn im Netz können sich Bürger freie Informationen beschaffen und sich austauschen. Wo kommen wir denn da hin!?
Es geht in diesem Fall auch nicht nur um ein Gesetz, sondern um 'ne ganze Latte voll:
- Kinder in sexuell unnatürlich betonter Haltung (das is wirklich so formuliert)
- Pr0n (Jugendschutz)
- Gewaltverherrlichung (Jugendschutz und noch der entsprechende § gegen die Gewaltverherrlichung als solches)
- verfassungsfeindliche Symbole (ihr wisst schon, all das Nazenzeuch)
- hab ich was vergessen? Ja sicher! Das Recht am eigenen Bild. Hier wird die Privatsphäre plötzlich erst genommen. Und das ist der Grund, warum ich ohne Vertrag keine Menschen fotografiere: jeder Hansel kann dich in Deutschland verklagen, wenn er zufällig auf deinem Bild ist.
Originally posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
Noizze Replikk edited this topic 60 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Keine Zensur!!! /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Keine Zensur!!! discussion threads
