13 ms·

Wikipedia sued by German killers in privacy claim

36 points by philf 17y ago

petewarden 17y ago
Here's the original Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr The murderers' names are Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé. Let's hear it for the Streisand Effect.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Privacy lawsuits are slowly becoming a paradoxical item, the Streisand Effect now is a meme of its own. I've seen this many times over now, someone sues to keep their privacy protected somehow and within minutes of the news hitting the wires there is an internet snowball referring to the Streisand effect achieving the exact opposite of what the lawsuit intended. The question now becomes if the Streisand effect is unstoppable (and it seems it is) does that mean that there is now officially no recourse to have your privacy protected ? Does the fact that these two are convicted killers count against them ? Even if they served their time ? Presumably after you've served your sentence you and society are past it, you should be able to get on with your life. Interesting detail is that due to a similar effect Sedlmayr came to be famous in the first place.
  - mechanical_fish 17y ago
    there is now officially no recourse to have your privacy protected ? You could change your name. Not that this is a definitive solution -- it's obviously rather painful to have to change the entire rest of your identity, rather than simply filing off the offensive part. And (for example), it won't get you off the sex offender registries that have proliferated in the USA, because you'll get arrested if you don't update the registry with your new name. But it would certainly be more practical than trying to "remove a drop of food coloring from a swimming pool", to steal Doctorow's metaphor.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      It would be sad if it came to that, especially for wrongly convicted people. Changing your name is not just some paperwork, there is a pretty strong psychological aspect to that.
- jamesjyu 17y ago
  If you're looking for more discussion, there is an ungodly amount going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion_of_Walter_Sedlmayr_edit_history_required http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_not...
abalashov 17y ago
I don't know about anyone else, but for me this is a hard one; I'm really mixed on it. On the one hand, you'll get no arguments against free speech or in favour of official censorship from me; go First Amendment, for sure. Likewise, it does not seem tenable to endorse the idea that someone who committed a crime can compel or mandate society to "forget" about it in all repositories of its institutional memory, including those which are created and maintained by private individuals in addition to governmental organisations. On the other hand, having known and watched people who were incarcerated and rehabilitated attempt to reintegrate into society and lead normal, law-abiding lives and find jobs and housing fail because of the prejudices that arise against them on the basis of their having been convicted of a felony or whatnot, I can definitely appreciate the spirit of this law. To me it seems absolutely imperative that criminals - up to and including those guilty of capital crimes - be given a new lease on life, contingent upon the terms of their sentencing. For the more conservative, law-and-order types among you who think this is a spineless bleeding-heart rant, I encourage you to contemplate for a moment what it's like to be in the shoes of someone who has committed a crime, experienced years or decades of imprisonment, whose will has been broken and whose remorse consumes them. As if they do not have enough of a burden to live with - and for far more criminals than you might think, it is a burden they excise with attempted suicide - society has conspired to ensure that it is so much more difficult for them to even meet the basic needs of livelihood. Or consider the case of innumerable teenagers in the US - like the infamous Genarlow Wilson case here in Georgia - that fall prey to the criminalisation of their consensual sexual activity by retarded, ass-backward state laws and then experience a lifetime of stigmatisation by being placed for the rest of their life on the sex offender registries with which the American polity is so obsessively fixated. My point is that the spirit of the law - that convicted criminals who have served their time have the right to be judged on their own terms subsequently without that cloud hanging over their head - deserves at least some intellectual consideration in this case. It certainly lends the issue some nuance that must be carefully weighed, even if you don't ultimately come down on the side of censorship. It's precisely these kinds of draconian stances on prisoners' and criminals' rights arising from an overzealous, fanatical jurisprudential self-concept that give the US the record and reputation of being rather backward among "First World" nations. The human dimensions of the criminal element must be taken into account; just because someone committed a crime does not mean they are not a human being and do not deserve your thoughts and your empathy.
salvadors 17y ago
There's a great article on the "Right to be Forgotten" at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1401357 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1401357 which compares the different approaches taken in the US vs Europe in these sorts of matters.
dbz 17y ago
I have one opinion and it's not mixed. I have no remorse for the killers. They want their name removed? Well, maybe they shouldn't have killed someone. I'm not trying to troll or flame or anything, I just feel that the punishment fits the crime. -> You kill an actor, you get fame. You don't like the fame? Don't kill the actor. And I feel the first amendment should have priority over anyone's personal feelings anyways. =/
- ugh 17y ago
  Wouldn’t a more rational approach to punishment to be one that puts (with certain constraints – freedom, privacy, cost and maybe a few others) minimizing crime above everything else? I don’t care how I feel about a certain punishment as long as it gets its job done. There are the least murders if you legalize murder (unlikely)? Fine, legalize it. Sure, you might want to minimize or maximize other things. The happiness of the victims (or their family and friends). The happiness of the people reading or hearing about the punishments. But that feels rather superficial to me. I guess that’s a judgment call. Now, we don’t really know whether this law actually gets the job done (and insofar, I am pretty split on this case) but at the very least, I have become quite careful when evaluating punishments (stripping certain rights to privacy away would be a punishment) with my feelings. Man, I’m rambling :)
  - dbz 17y ago
    I see how what I said comes off rather emotional vs. rational(/logical). I agree that they should get a punishment that fits the crime. In fact I feel that so much that I think that each time a crime is committed, the person should get an individualized punishment regardless of what other punishments have been in the past. The punishment should fit the person and the crime. (Of course there should be guidelines w/e we don't want to hear me ramble =p) However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame, and they didn't want the fame, which I personally believe they deserved for murder. And I was expressing that they got what they deserved, imho. (I view murder as rarely forgivable.)
    - lucumo 17y ago
maxklein 17y ago
Why don't they just change their names? I mean, if it's about finding employment and they don't want their employer know about this - what's the plan to explain that 16 year gap in their resume. Holiday in poland?
- eru 17y ago
  They only have to convince their boss. Not their co-workers.
nandemo 17y ago
Wikipedia administrators (...) have been discussing the challenge for more than a year. But there is deep disagreement about whether the individuals' German-determined right to privacy overrides the US First Amendment. There's no such disagreement. Of course the German law doesn't trump US law in US jurisdiction. I checked the wikipedia discussion and the best argument I found for removing the names in the English version amounts to: Since they are not notable, respect for their privacy would demand that their full names are left out. Since they went to court with this, the perpetrators have made clear that they would like to keep their privacy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a forum for public shaming, their full names should be removed. I still can't agree with this but it makes more sense than simply caving to the German law.
mkyc 17y ago
The problem isn't that the information is available, it's how the information is used. That is, the problem isn't Wikipedia, it's the coworker who treats the reformed and repentant ex-convict like trash, then goes home and beats her kids. Or the neighbor who tells guests that "a criminal lives next door", without being asked and for no good reason. Our built-in reputation heuristics don't function correctly when our memories are so wonderfully enhanced by technology. I look forward to the days of disposable identities and the Friends of Privacy. Or genetic screening against being a dick.
jjs 17y ago
If you want to keep your privacy, don't kill a public figure.

36 points by philf 17y ago

Here's the original Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr The murderers' names are Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé. Let's hear it for the Streisand Effect.

jacquesm 17y ago
Privacy lawsuits are slowly becoming a paradoxical item, the Streisand Effect now is a meme of its own. I've seen this many times over now, someone sues to keep their privacy protected somehow and within minutes of the news hitting the wires there is an internet snowball referring to the Streisand effect achieving the exact opposite of what the lawsuit intended. The question now becomes if the Streisand effect is unstoppable (and it seems it is) does that mean that there is now officially no recourse to have your privacy protected ? Does the fact that these two are convicted killers count against them ? Even if they served their time ? Presumably after you've served your sentence you and society are past it, you should be able to get on with your life. Interesting detail is that due to a similar effect Sedlmayr came to be famous in the first place.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  there is now officially no recourse to have your privacy protected ? You could change your name. Not that this is a definitive solution -- it's obviously rather painful to have to change the entire rest of your identity, rather than simply filing off the offensive part. And (for example), it won't get you off the sex offender registries that have proliferated in the USA, because you'll get arrested if you don't update the registry with your new name. But it would certainly be more practical than trying to "remove a drop of food coloring from a swimming pool", to steal Doctorow's metaphor.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    It would be sad if it came to that, especially for wrongly convicted people. Changing your name is not just some paperwork, there is a pretty strong psychological aspect to that.
jamesjyu 17y ago
If you're looking for more discussion, there is an ungodly amount going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion_of_Walter_Sedlmayr_edit_history_required http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_not...

abalashov 17y ago

I don't know about anyone else, but for me this is a hard one; I'm really mixed on it. On the one hand, you'll get no arguments against free speech or in favour of official censorship from me; go First Amendment, for sure. Likewise, it does not seem tenable to endorse the idea that someone who committed a crime can compel or mandate society to "forget" about it in all repositories of its institutional memory, including those which are created and maintained by private individuals in addition to governmental organisations. On the other hand, having known and watched people who were incarcerated and rehabilitated attempt to reintegrate into society and lead normal, law-abiding lives and find jobs and housing fail because of the prejudices that arise against them on the basis of their having been convicted of a felony or whatnot, I can definitely appreciate the spirit of this law. To me it seems absolutely imperative that criminals - up to and including those guilty of capital crimes - be given a new lease on life, contingent upon the terms of their sentencing. For the more conservative, law-and-order types among you who think this is a spineless bleeding-heart rant, I encourage you to contemplate for a moment what it's like to be in the shoes of someone who has committed a crime, experienced years or decades of imprisonment, whose will has been broken and whose remorse consumes them. As if they do not have enough of a burden to live with - and for far more criminals than you might think, it is a burden they excise with attempted suicide - society has conspired to ensure that it is so much more difficult for them to even meet the basic needs of livelihood. Or consider the case of innumerable teenagers in the US - like the infamous Genarlow Wilson case here in Georgia - that fall prey to the criminalisation of their consensual sexual activity by retarded, ass-backward state laws and then experience a lifetime of stigmatisation by being placed for the rest of their life on the sex offender registries with which the American polity is so obsessively fixated. My point is that the spirit of the law - that convicted criminals who have served their time have the right to be judged on their own terms subsequently without that cloud hanging over their head - deserves at least some intellectual consideration in this case. It certainly lends the issue some nuance that must be carefully weighed, even if you don't ultimately come down on the side of censorship. It's precisely these kinds of draconian stances on prisoners' and criminals' rights arising from an overzealous, fanatical jurisprudential self-concept that give the US the record and reputation of being rather backward among "First World" nations. The human dimensions of the criminal element must be taken into account; just because someone committed a crime does not mean they are not a human being and do not deserve your thoughts and your empathy.

salvadors 17y ago

There's a great article on the "Right to be Forgotten" at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1401357 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1401357 which compares the different approaches taken in the US vs Europe in these sorts of matters.

dbz 17y ago

I have one opinion and it's not mixed. I have no remorse for the killers. They want their name removed? Well, maybe they shouldn't have killed someone. I'm not trying to troll or flame or anything, I just feel that the punishment fits the crime. -> You kill an actor, you get fame. You don't like the fame? Don't kill the actor. And I feel the first amendment should have priority over anyone's personal feelings anyways. =/

ugh 17y ago
Wouldn’t a more rational approach to punishment to be one that puts (with certain constraints – freedom, privacy, cost and maybe a few others) minimizing crime above everything else? I don’t care how I feel about a certain punishment as long as it gets its job done. There are the least murders if you legalize murder (unlikely)? Fine, legalize it. Sure, you might want to minimize or maximize other things. The happiness of the victims (or their family and friends). The happiness of the people reading or hearing about the punishments. But that feels rather superficial to me. I guess that’s a judgment call. Now, we don’t really know whether this law actually gets the job done (and insofar, I am pretty split on this case) but at the very least, I have become quite careful when evaluating punishments (stripping certain rights to privacy away would be a punishment) with my feelings. Man, I’m rambling :)
- dbz 17y ago
  I see how what I said comes off rather emotional vs. rational(/logical). I agree that they should get a punishment that fits the crime. In fact I feel that so much that I think that each time a crime is committed, the person should get an individualized punishment regardless of what other punishments have been in the past. The punishment should fit the person and the crime. (Of course there should be guidelines w/e we don't want to hear me ramble =p) However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame, and they didn't want the fame, which I personally believe they deserved for murder. And I was expressing that they got what they deserved, imho. (I view murder as rarely forgivable.)
  - lucumo 17y ago

maxklein 17y ago

Why don't they just change their names? I mean, if it's about finding employment and they don't want their employer know about this - what's the plan to explain that 16 year gap in their resume. Holiday in poland?

eru 17y ago
They only have to convince their boss. Not their co-workers.

nandemo 17y ago

Wikipedia administrators (...) have been discussing the challenge for more than a year. But there is deep disagreement about whether the individuals' German-determined right to privacy overrides the US First Amendment. There's no such disagreement. Of course the German law doesn't trump US law in US jurisdiction. I checked the wikipedia discussion and the best argument I found for removing the names in the English version amounts to: Since they are not notable, respect for their privacy would demand that their full names are left out. Since they went to court with this, the perpetrators have made clear that they would like to keep their privacy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a forum for public shaming, their full names should be removed. I still can't agree with this but it makes more sense than simply caving to the German law.

mkyc 17y ago

The problem isn't that the information is available, it's how the information is used. That is, the problem isn't Wikipedia, it's the coworker who treats the reformed and repentant ex-convict like trash, then goes home and beats her kids. Or the neighbor who tells guests that "a criminal lives next door", without being asked and for no good reason. Our built-in reputation heuristics don't function correctly when our memories are so wonderfully enhanced by technology. I look forward to the days of disposable identities and the Friends of Privacy. Or genetic screening against being a dick.

jjs 17y ago

If you want to keep your privacy, don't kill a public figure.