What's distressing about this is that they found a French Wikipedia sysop who they could identify in real life and "summoned" him to their offices (I presume from the language it was a summons he couldn't refuse). Then forced him to delete it there and then, despite no prior connection to the article, or else be detained.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of them wanting to delete the article, or whether it had super-secret information, there is only really one response to what they did; What. The. Fuck.
The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could be in trouble. If we feel like it".
> (I presume from the language it was a summons he couldn't refuse)
From the article (thanks for linking it btw, it has slightly more info than the English text in the OP):
"This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices."
So I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didn't know what it was about and therefore saw no reason not to.
There's some comments below the article you linked, criticizing the sysop for not refusing to delete the article, calling it an abuse of his powers. Well. I don't know who this sysop is, but if he's just an average Jacques, never having had to deal with strong-arming by intelligence agencies, I can totally understand why he chose that course of action. After all, you can always undelete an article, and right then, at that moment, things must have seemed pretty scary to him. From the (English part of the) OP, it states that he tried to talk them out of it, that despite his role as a sysop it was not his decision to make, point them to the Wikimedia Foundation, etc. Who knows what they threatened him with (probably jailtime), I can't blame him for not risking that, or at least not risking it until he gets a clearer picture.
He probably thought, let's get myself out of this first, and let the inevitable publicity shitstorm sort things out later. And indeed, apparently the article is back up.
As far as I'm concerned, that's not the distressing part.
Once the authorities concluded a crime was being committed by organisation X, they found someone involved with that organisation and forced them to stop.
They clearly correctly identified that person as a) being a member, and b) having the means to delete the article.
That's not a new precedent, that's perfectly normal. The only real issue is the ridiculous attempt to make the information "disappear" in the first place.
The funny thing here is that deleting an article on Wikipedia is more akin to hiding its contents from the public (i.e. non-sysop users) than it is to deletion. No history or content is actually lost, and as we're all aware nothing ever truly disappears on the internet. Ironically, if they wanted sensitive information gone for good, they would have to use the "oversight" feature, which requires the Foundation's blessing.
The precedent seems to be more along the lines of, "If you are an administrator of a website hosting (what we claim to be) illegal content, you are obliged to delete it upon being informed".
It's a 'do the ends justify the means' issue. I'm kind of shocked that the above the fold comments here no one seems to take into account that France is engaged in conflict. As a result, if you have an easy to access well written article, which is exactly what wikis espouse to be that has detailed relevant as deemed by the french gov't military information, It is their decision to determine what was once public to be classified information. As much as I am for supporting rights of individuals and keeping systems in balance, I'm not so much for the establishment of principle to prove a point and set a precedent (which is not how the french law system works by the way) so much as I am for the utilitarian exercising of power when lives are on the line. How selfish must one be to cling to a few pages on principle when others could die for it.
"The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could be in trouble. If we feel like it".
The other way goes that: 'If I have time sensitive information due to the changing landscape of warfare, I could get soldiers and civilians killed if I feel like it'
I sadly would trust the gov't on this decision than an individual.
- The laws on official secrets typically (and uncontroversially IMO) forbid any unauthorized handling or distribution of classified material. This is not a US-pandering post-9-11 knee-jerk thing, it goes back at least to WWII, and probably much longer.
- Many facts are classified, even though they don't appear significant. Sometimes they indeed aren't, sometimes the motivation is that a multitude of such facts collectively suggest something which is significant.
- Telling an uncleared person what is classified amounts to giving that person even more classified material that they're not allowed to have. Obviously, so is saying that there's classified material on the page at all, but arguably less so.
- There are some items on the Wikipedia page in question that have "citation needed", ie. they are not immediately obviously sourced from publicly accessible material. Chances are that the problematic material is among those facts.
You're not wrong, but what you're stating is completely misleading. The problem has nothing to do with the fact that material may be classified or not. It has nothing to do with the fact that authorities are demanding to take down the material. Heck it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation or this particular case.
The revolting issue is that a Wikipedia volunteer got bullied because of this incident. Let me rephrase this: They went through the legal channels, met with a refusal from the other party's lawyer. Instead of moving the issue to a judge or a competent authority (remember, the article had been up since 2009, I really don't think they were in a hurry), they harass a kid who had no idea the page even existed.
Talking of whether Wikimedia should take this down or not has absolutely nothing to do with this far greater problem. And most of us probably don't have a fraction of the info to grasp the bigger story. Let's focus on the real issue here, the one where government stepped out of line!
The laws on official secrets typically (and uncontroversially IMO) forbid any unauthorized handling or distribution of classified material. This is not a US-pandering post-9-11 knee-jerk thing, it goes back at least to WWII, and probably much longer.
Interestingly, the US has no corresponding law. There were previously some similar terms in the Espionage Act, but the courts have held them to be unconstitutional. A civilian who comes in to possession of state secrets is not obligated to keep them secret. Selling them to foreign governments would probably still constitute espionage, but selling them to newspapers is protected under free speech/free press.
Yeah, um, you know how people say communism is a fine system, is just that people let it down, and there for it is thoroughly discredited? National security and official secrets are kinda like that.
Sure, in an ideal world, where we trust government and its institutions, I couldn't agree more. Problem is that, for many, its no longer the case. We have seen it abused to protect mere individuals or money, when it is supposed to protect the state from attack.
The other problem is that most states now equate business and commerce to state and security. What they certainly don't do any more, if they ever did, is equate the citizens to state.... until you vote. The scope is out of hand.
Imagine if the state valued our individual rights and privacy as much as it values the rights and privacy of the itself?
'National secrecy' is not a new concept however since 9/11 it has been used as a paintbrush for broad-sweeping and baseless applications, and this case is just another example of that extra-judicial nonsense.
Wikimedia was perfectly within their right to tell the DCRI to pound sand, and when DCRI threatened an unrelated individual then they lost their credibility.
> - Telling an uncleared person what is classified amounts to giving that person even more classified material that they're not allowed to have. Obviously, so is saying that there's classified material on the page at all, but arguably less so.
What recourse does a person have then? If the information is publicly posted, it hardly seems more of a security risk to tell one person what to remove than have the 'secrets' published for the entire world to see.
Additionally, how can a company such as Wikipedia possibly comply without any specific information? I.e. - how can they prevent the re-posting of said information if they have no idea what that information is?
Suddenly I cannot think of a single thing QUITE so intoxicatingly interesting as what the French might be up to with this radio station on Pierre sur Haute!
Surely it must be just sinfully rich with secret sauce, mystery, and espionage! If only there were thousands of like-minded, curious individuals with the wherewithal to investigate and help bring these wonderful mysteries to light...
If only... The article states it's one of four military radio relays along the North-South axis in France, and that launch orders for nuclear weapons could pass through it if used. As such it'd probably be one of the primary targets for anyone who'd like to attack France.
That kind of position probably makes some intelligence officials feel incredibly important if they can find an excuse to demand even relatively trivial information about it deleted.
5 avril 2013 à 09:16 Inisheer (discuter | contributions) a restauré la page Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute (30 versions restaurées : suppression précipitée)
4 avril 2013 à 11:02 Remi Mathis (discuter | contributions) a supprimé la page Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute (Article qui contient des informations classifiées, qui contrevient à l'article 413-11 du code pénal)
The absolute most interesting thing about this station, from the article, is that the government wanted an article about it to be deleted. Which means there's probably more there that is interesting. So, they've now broadcast to the world "hey, scrutinize this otherwise innocuous-looking radio site to find what we wanted to hide."
Someone didn't think this thing through.
They should have just edited it to make it sound more boring or to contain red herring information like "This site is notable for its former use as communications center and currently for the largest pygmy marmoset population in Europe." Anyone reading that would click the pygmy marmoset link and the base would have been hidden in plain sight.
Absolutely. However, a public office bullying a neutral agency in to deleting 'information with notability' i.e. public information is certainly suspicious.
Not defending the idiotic actions of the DCRI here, but try looking at it from a non-American perspective.
American organizations appear to bend over backward to be of service to American intelligence interests around the world, but tend to act arrogantly if approached by local authorities over local matters, to the extend of openly violating the law of the country they're operating in.
For all we know (I'm neither a lawyer nor French), French law requires the whole publication to be taken down immediately pending further procedure. In that case it's not surprise that something designated a matter of national security gets escalated fast.
Wikipedia's blunt refusal has probably pissed the French of more than the actual content of the article.
>>American organizations appear to bend over backward to be of service to American intelligence interests around the world, but tend to act arrogantly if approached by local authorities over local matters, to the extend of openly violating the law of the country they're operating in.
Why is it that this makes what the French authorities did OK? Your argument boils down to "He did it so I should be able to do it too?" What kind of screw up logic is that. Seriously, W.T.F. We are not talking about kids here.
For those who want to learn more, the radio station built at this site is part of a Tropospheric Scatter Communication Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter) named Ace High and which is used by NATO for military and civilian communications.
Wikipedia is full classified information, the same way as Jane's and Aviation Week is full of classified information. Intelligence agencies read this stuff and try to sift disinformation from genuine leaks. Counter-intelligence agencies try to act cool and make the enemy suspect the information is inaccurate.
Perhaps this is the sensitive portion?
The most important part of the site is the underground part, used for transmissions dispatch: at a speed of 2 Mb/s, communications from the towers are analysed, then redirected to be transmitted as appropriate.
I think this is a really revealing story. Not revealing as
in what the French Government were worried about specifically but as in the changing of the world.
Firstly the grey world of interesting classified information - it has long been the domain of Janes' Ships and similar publications - who themselves had been "trusted" not to go too far, and only occassionally (as in the reveal of the Stealth bomber as an airfix kit in the late '80s) does it come to mass public attention.
This resulted in a grey world where secrets were not actually secret - just private.
Secondly - the loss of privacy. We worry about it for individuals - but it is happening to governments too, and faster. And they, like us, have not accpeted the new reality - there is no privacy. Facebook can determine if you are having an affair, are gay or ill. Combined tracking of sites and queries can reveal almost anything about ourselves and our medical conditions. Concerned your employer might know you are rethinking your sexuality? Don't Google "gay bars". Don't friend anyone. Remove the battery from the iPhone before going out for the night.
The same goes for governments - if it is not a secret, it is
open. And it is not a secret because you say so - its a secret because no-one knows.
Thirdly this leads to a simple choice - decide on the things you are going to keep secret. And keep them secret with all the resources of the State. This clearly does not work in the "I say that is secret and you will now forget it" approach taken here. It works in the not F$%king telling anyone sense.
Fourthly - Most things will be open - its not feasible to hide a 100ft tower in the middle of the French countryside.
You cannot keep a plane secret. You cannot keep a prison secret. In fact there is not much in an open andinquisitive society you can keep secret.
What does this leave? I am not too sure. Secret rendition flights are monitored by plane-spotting enthusiasts and soon will just be a google-satellite search away.
I think it will be a better world - less secrecy usually means better function, but there is a really big threat - the tempting way to keep things secret is to keep everything secret. Shut down the open, democratic society. Shut down inquisitiveness. Piece by piece.
And we do need to fight that at each and every turn because until governments get it - this is their default, tempting solution. Fighting terrorists? Lets torture some. Nuclear strike warning network under threat? Put wikipedia under French control.
My only suggestion is as follows: define National Security. Something like a reasonable belief that this things will threaten to destroy 2% of GDP or 1000+ deaths of citizens.
Embarrassment to Politicans? Loss of a couple of agents? Not likely. So when someone quotes National Security, people listen. And if you quote it for a wikipedia article - woe betide you.
If we do it right we shall slowly find that like online security, you get it right by actually being secure.
Lesson here - security by secrecy, is no security at all.
It uses Anonymous and Wikileaks as examples (which you may or may not disagree with), but I'm linking it for the general discussion about a sort of digital generation gap, how the "governing class" of people hasn't caught up with this digital era quite yet.
Here's a link to a pastebin of the original article dated July 20, 2012 before it was deleted. Also includes a link to the video that started the controversy:
http://pastebin.com/vYGkSzyA
EDIT:
If, like it randomly happens to me, the link takes you in the middle of a french discussion, you just need to scroll all the way down to get a much more explicative message from the WMF about the chain of events.
I always have a hard time navigating wp discussion pages. Here is what looks like a more informative post that the one linked in the title of this HN post. EDIT: disregard that comment about the title as it might be a navigation problem on my side.
> First, my apologies for speaking in English in response to this thread, but I fear my French would not be adequate to convey what I would like to. If someone who is fluent in English and French would be so kind as to translate my message so that everyone on this thread can understand it, I would very much appreciate that. The Wikimedia Foundation's legal team was contacted by Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur in early March regarding the French language Wikipedia article entitled "La station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute". The Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur requested that we delete the article in its entirety under the claim that it contained classified military information. I responded to Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur, requesting more detailed information because it was not apparent what classified information the article could possibly contain from a plain reading of the article. The Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur repeatedly failed to provide any further information and simply continued to make a general takedown demand, despite my explanation that we could not remove the information without more information from them. Eventually, I had no choice but to refuse their request until they are willing to provide me with more information so that I can properly evaluate their claim under legal standards. The community remains free, of course, to retain or remove the article as it sees fit. But at this point, we do not see a demonstrated reason to remove it on legal grounds. --Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel (WMF)
And this is "Remi"'s first post about the whole thing (rough translation and report):
> Bonjour,
> je vous informe que l'article Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute vient d'être supprimé par mes soins. Cet article contrevenait à l'article 413-11 du code pénal français (compromission du secret de la Défense nationale). La police française m'a convoqué en tant qu'administrateur, suite au refus de la Wikimedia Foundation de supprimer cet article en l'état des éléments fournis.
> La remise en ligne engagera la responsabilité pénale de l'administrateur qui aura effectué cette action.
Remi M. (d · c). À Paris, ce 4 avril 2013 à 11:11 (CEST)
In a nutshell:
- He deleted an article about a military radio station (Pierre sur Haute) ;
- he states that that article violates article 413-411 of the french penal code (violation of state defense secret) ;
- french police asks him to come to their office for a little chat (can't recall the english legalese for this) following wikimedia foundation refusal to delete the article. Him=a wikipedia administrator.
- he finally states that any admin who restores the article would face legal and penal consequences.
I understand from this first post that it is implied he deleted the article after the whole wikimedia refusal to delete the article but don't quote me on that and check for the exact chronology of events yourself when it surfaces.
There is also now a debate about the role of wikipedia admin on articles and their rights to delete or endorse responsabilities (I haven't read everything yet, take my rough report and translation with a grain of salt).
The debate is also fueled by the fact that "Rémi" is not simply "a" wikipedia admin but the president of Wikimedia France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9mi_Mathis ; which drives people to ask for him to resign.
I grew up in France, this isn't unexpected or unusual for the government to do.
But it is a perfect example of why administrative rights (the ability to delete/censor an article) should reside in a country that has complete freedom of the press, America.
What's next? How easy would it be for French officials to decide that something that's critical of the president or the ruling party may be a threat to state security and censor the internet accordingly?
One simple suggestion to prevent this from happening in the future : require each deletion to be approved by another Wikipedia representative in a DIFFERENT COUNTRY.
[+] [-] ErrantX|13 years ago|reply
What's distressing about this is that they found a French Wikipedia sysop who they could identify in real life and "summoned" him to their offices (I presume from the language it was a summons he couldn't refuse). Then forced him to delete it there and then, despite no prior connection to the article, or else be detained.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of them wanting to delete the article, or whether it had super-secret information, there is only really one response to what they did; What. The. Fuck.
The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could be in trouble. If we feel like it".
[+] [-] tripzilch|13 years ago|reply
From the article (thanks for linking it btw, it has slightly more info than the English text in the OP):
"This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices."
So I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didn't know what it was about and therefore saw no reason not to.
There's some comments below the article you linked, criticizing the sysop for not refusing to delete the article, calling it an abuse of his powers. Well. I don't know who this sysop is, but if he's just an average Jacques, never having had to deal with strong-arming by intelligence agencies, I can totally understand why he chose that course of action. After all, you can always undelete an article, and right then, at that moment, things must have seemed pretty scary to him. From the (English part of the) OP, it states that he tried to talk them out of it, that despite his role as a sysop it was not his decision to make, point them to the Wikimedia Foundation, etc. Who knows what they threatened him with (probably jailtime), I can't blame him for not risking that, or at least not risking it until he gets a clearer picture.
He probably thought, let's get myself out of this first, and let the inevitable publicity shitstorm sort things out later. And indeed, apparently the article is back up.
[+] [-] onemorepassword|13 years ago|reply
Once the authorities concluded a crime was being committed by organisation X, they found someone involved with that organisation and forced them to stop.
They clearly correctly identified that person as a) being a member, and b) having the means to delete the article.
That's not a new precedent, that's perfectly normal. The only real issue is the ridiculous attempt to make the information "disappear" in the first place.
[+] [-] krebby|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] misiti3780|13 years ago|reply
It only receives hundreds? Something is wrong with sentence.
[+] [-] gsnedders|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joyeuse6701|13 years ago|reply
"The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could be in trouble. If we feel like it".
The other way goes that: 'If I have time sensitive information due to the changing landscape of warfare, I could get soldiers and civilians killed if I feel like it'
I sadly would trust the gov't on this decision than an individual.
[+] [-] mseebach|13 years ago|reply
- The laws on official secrets typically (and uncontroversially IMO) forbid any unauthorized handling or distribution of classified material. This is not a US-pandering post-9-11 knee-jerk thing, it goes back at least to WWII, and probably much longer.
- Many facts are classified, even though they don't appear significant. Sometimes they indeed aren't, sometimes the motivation is that a multitude of such facts collectively suggest something which is significant.
- Telling an uncleared person what is classified amounts to giving that person even more classified material that they're not allowed to have. Obviously, so is saying that there's classified material on the page at all, but arguably less so.
- There are some items on the Wikipedia page in question that have "citation needed", ie. they are not immediately obviously sourced from publicly accessible material. Chances are that the problematic material is among those facts.
[+] [-] babarock|13 years ago|reply
The revolting issue is that a Wikipedia volunteer got bullied because of this incident. Let me rephrase this: They went through the legal channels, met with a refusal from the other party's lawyer. Instead of moving the issue to a judge or a competent authority (remember, the article had been up since 2009, I really don't think they were in a hurry), they harass a kid who had no idea the page even existed.
Talking of whether Wikimedia should take this down or not has absolutely nothing to do with this far greater problem. And most of us probably don't have a fraction of the info to grasp the bigger story. Let's focus on the real issue here, the one where government stepped out of line!
[+] [-] Zak|13 years ago|reply
Interestingly, the US has no corresponding law. There were previously some similar terms in the Espionage Act, but the courts have held them to be unconstitutional. A civilian who comes in to possession of state secrets is not obligated to keep them secret. Selling them to foreign governments would probably still constitute espionage, but selling them to newspapers is protected under free speech/free press.
[+] [-] alan_cx|13 years ago|reply
Sure, in an ideal world, where we trust government and its institutions, I couldn't agree more. Problem is that, for many, its no longer the case. We have seen it abused to protect mere individuals or money, when it is supposed to protect the state from attack.
The other problem is that most states now equate business and commerce to state and security. What they certainly don't do any more, if they ever did, is equate the citizens to state.... until you vote. The scope is out of hand.
Imagine if the state valued our individual rights and privacy as much as it values the rights and privacy of the itself?
[+] [-] ihsw|13 years ago|reply
Wikimedia was perfectly within their right to tell the DCRI to pound sand, and when DCRI threatened an unrelated individual then they lost their credibility.
[+] [-] truxs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cloverich|13 years ago|reply
What recourse does a person have then? If the information is publicly posted, it hardly seems more of a security risk to tell one person what to remove than have the 'secrets' published for the entire world to see.
Additionally, how can a company such as Wikipedia possibly comply without any specific information? I.e. - how can they prevent the re-posting of said information if they have no idea what that information is?
[+] [-] elchief|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thotpoizn|13 years ago|reply
Surely it must be just sinfully rich with secret sauce, mystery, and espionage! If only there were thousands of like-minded, curious individuals with the wherewithal to investigate and help bring these wonderful mysteries to light...
[+] [-] vidarh|13 years ago|reply
That kind of position probably makes some intelligence officials feel incredibly important if they can find an excuse to demand even relatively trivial information about it deleted.
[+] [-] praptak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomasjoulin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kahirsch|13 years ago|reply
5 avril 2013 à 09:16 Inisheer (discuter | contributions) a restauré la page Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute (30 versions restaurées : suppression précipitée)
4 avril 2013 à 11:02 Remi Mathis (discuter | contributions) a supprimé la page Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute (Article qui contient des informations classifiées, qui contrevient à l'article 413-11 du code pénal)
[+] [-] thatthatis|13 years ago|reply
Someone didn't think this thing through.
They should have just edited it to make it sound more boring or to contain red herring information like "This site is notable for its former use as communications center and currently for the largest pygmy marmoset population in Europe." Anyone reading that would click the pygmy marmoset link and the base would have been hidden in plain sight.
[+] [-] jontro|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ernesth|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ra|13 years ago|reply
But, yes, from a New Zealand perspective, The Rainbow Warrior affair triggered an equally dramatic change in foreign policy.
[+] [-] duncan_bayne|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vingt-2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monsterix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stfu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sold|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidgerard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onemorepassword|13 years ago|reply
American organizations appear to bend over backward to be of service to American intelligence interests around the world, but tend to act arrogantly if approached by local authorities over local matters, to the extend of openly violating the law of the country they're operating in.
For all we know (I'm neither a lawyer nor French), French law requires the whole publication to be taken down immediately pending further procedure. In that case it's not surprise that something designated a matter of national security gets escalated fast.
Wikipedia's blunt refusal has probably pissed the French of more than the actual content of the article.
[+] [-] elpachuco|13 years ago|reply
Why is it that this makes what the French authorities did OK? Your argument boils down to "He did it so I should be able to do it too?" What kind of screw up logic is that. Seriously, W.T.F. We are not talking about kids here.
[+] [-] smokeyj|13 years ago|reply
I think you mean the pro-censorship perspective..
[+] [-] sp4ke|13 years ago|reply
For those who want to learn more, the radio station built at this site is part of a Tropospheric Scatter Communication Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter) named Ace High and which is used by NATO for military and civilian communications.
You can see it here on a map with other TSCN networks http://rammstein.dfmk.hu/~s200/tropo.html#ace
[+] [-] wolf550e|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] D9u|13 years ago|reply
Perhaps this is the sensitive portion? The most important part of the site is the underground part, used for transmissions dispatch: at a speed of 2 Mb/s, communications from the towers are analysed, then redirected to be transmitted as appropriate.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|13 years ago|reply
Firstly the grey world of interesting classified information - it has long been the domain of Janes' Ships and similar publications - who themselves had been "trusted" not to go too far, and only occassionally (as in the reveal of the Stealth bomber as an airfix kit in the late '80s) does it come to mass public attention.
This resulted in a grey world where secrets were not actually secret - just private.
Secondly - the loss of privacy. We worry about it for individuals - but it is happening to governments too, and faster. And they, like us, have not accpeted the new reality - there is no privacy. Facebook can determine if you are having an affair, are gay or ill. Combined tracking of sites and queries can reveal almost anything about ourselves and our medical conditions. Concerned your employer might know you are rethinking your sexuality? Don't Google "gay bars". Don't friend anyone. Remove the battery from the iPhone before going out for the night.
The same goes for governments - if it is not a secret, it is open. And it is not a secret because you say so - its a secret because no-one knows.
Thirdly this leads to a simple choice - decide on the things you are going to keep secret. And keep them secret with all the resources of the State. This clearly does not work in the "I say that is secret and you will now forget it" approach taken here. It works in the not F$%king telling anyone sense.
Fourthly - Most things will be open - its not feasible to hide a 100ft tower in the middle of the French countryside. You cannot keep a plane secret. You cannot keep a prison secret. In fact there is not much in an open andinquisitive society you can keep secret.
What does this leave? I am not too sure. Secret rendition flights are monitored by plane-spotting enthusiasts and soon will just be a google-satellite search away.
I think it will be a better world - less secrecy usually means better function, but there is a really big threat - the tempting way to keep things secret is to keep everything secret. Shut down the open, democratic society. Shut down inquisitiveness. Piece by piece.
And we do need to fight that at each and every turn because until governments get it - this is their default, tempting solution. Fighting terrorists? Lets torture some. Nuclear strike warning network under threat? Put wikipedia under French control.
My only suggestion is as follows: define National Security. Something like a reasonable belief that this things will threaten to destroy 2% of GDP or 1000+ deaths of citizens. Embarrassment to Politicans? Loss of a couple of agents? Not likely. So when someone quotes National Security, people listen. And if you quote it for a wikipedia article - woe betide you.
If we do it right we shall slowly find that like online security, you get it right by actually being secure.
Lesson here - security by secrecy, is no security at all.
[+] [-] tripzilch|13 years ago|reply
I read an interesting article somewhat related to this:
http://krypt3ia.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/digital-natives-dig...
It uses Anonymous and Wikileaks as examples (which you may or may not disagree with), but I'm linking it for the general discussion about a sort of digital generation gap, how the "governing class" of people hasn't caught up with this digital era quite yet.
[+] [-] raonyguimaraes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _quasimodo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slacka|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnchristopher|13 years ago|reply
I always have a hard time navigating wp discussion pages. Here is what looks like a more informative post that the one linked in the title of this HN post. EDIT: disregard that comment about the title as it might be a navigation problem on my side.
> First, my apologies for speaking in English in response to this thread, but I fear my French would not be adequate to convey what I would like to. If someone who is fluent in English and French would be so kind as to translate my message so that everyone on this thread can understand it, I would very much appreciate that. The Wikimedia Foundation's legal team was contacted by Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur in early March regarding the French language Wikipedia article entitled "La station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute". The Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur requested that we delete the article in its entirety under the claim that it contained classified military information. I responded to Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur, requesting more detailed information because it was not apparent what classified information the article could possibly contain from a plain reading of the article. The Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur repeatedly failed to provide any further information and simply continued to make a general takedown demand, despite my explanation that we could not remove the information without more information from them. Eventually, I had no choice but to refuse their request until they are willing to provide me with more information so that I can properly evaluate their claim under legal standards. The community remains free, of course, to retain or remove the article as it sees fit. But at this point, we do not see a demonstrated reason to remove it on legal grounds. --Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel (WMF)
And this is "Remi"'s first post about the whole thing (rough translation and report):
> Bonjour,
> je vous informe que l'article Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute vient d'être supprimé par mes soins. Cet article contrevenait à l'article 413-11 du code pénal français (compromission du secret de la Défense nationale). La police française m'a convoqué en tant qu'administrateur, suite au refus de la Wikimedia Foundation de supprimer cet article en l'état des éléments fournis.
> La remise en ligne engagera la responsabilité pénale de l'administrateur qui aura effectué cette action.
Remi M. (d · c). À Paris, ce 4 avril 2013 à 11:11 (CEST)
In a nutshell:
- He deleted an article about a military radio station (Pierre sur Haute) ;
- he states that that article violates article 413-411 of the french penal code (violation of state defense secret) ;
- french police asks him to come to their office for a little chat (can't recall the english legalese for this) following wikimedia foundation refusal to delete the article. Him=a wikipedia administrator.
- he finally states that any admin who restores the article would face legal and penal consequences.
I understand from this first post that it is implied he deleted the article after the whole wikimedia refusal to delete the article but don't quote me on that and check for the exact chronology of events yourself when it surfaces.
There is also now a debate about the role of wikipedia admin on articles and their rights to delete or endorse responsabilities (I haven't read everything yet, take my rough report and translation with a grain of salt).
[+] [-] ernesth|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] froggyDoggy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HunterV|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmmayer1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edouard1234567|13 years ago|reply