FBI Instructs Wikipedia To Drop FBI Seal 485
eldavojohn writes "The FBI got in contact with Wikipedia's San Francisco office to inform them they were violating the law in regards to 'unauthorized production' of this seal. The FBI quoted the law as saying, 'Whoever possesses any insignia... or any colorable imitation thereof... shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both.' Wikipedia refused to take the image down and stated that the FBI was misquoting the law. The FBI claims that this production of this image is 'particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations of restrictions by Wikipedia users.' Wikipedia's lawyer, Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes), contacted the FBI and asserted, 'We are compelled as a matter of law and principle to deny your demand for removal of the FBI Seal from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons,' adding that the firm was 'prepared to argue our view in court.' Wikipedia appears to be holding their ground; we shall see if the FBI comes to their senses or proceeds with litigation."
Re:I guess... (Score:2, Interesting)
.
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I think doing that one time would be enough to end this kind of BS.
Re:From the page itself... (Score:1, Interesting)
It goes something like this:
"This image is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain."
Re:Ummm what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like the law is basically there to stop people from posing as federal agents. Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas
That's obviously the original point of that law. Point is it's outdated and it's not much use today. If they really wanted to stop people from knowing what it looks like, why post it on their own site [fbi.gov]
Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas ... but on the other hand, how would I know what an authentic FBI badge looks like if I've never seen it before, so how would I know if I'm dealing with an imposter or not?
That's not a really a valid reason for the Wikipedia Foundation to inform the public, it would be solely the FBI's responsibility. And the average citizen still wouldn't know if they're dealing with a real agent even if they produce a perfect replica. That's why social engineering works so well and why enforcement of this law is important only against those who actually pose as federal agents or actually conspire to, which obviously isn't the case with Wikipedia.
FBI logo available on AP Graphics Bank (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a graphic designer for a TV station. We subscribe to the Associated Press's Graphics Bank service. The same seal is available for download in high resolution. Is AP breaking the law? Am I breaking the law whenever I put the FBI logo on air for a story about the FBI??
FBI Logo on the FBI Website (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll admit, I couldn't find a high-res image on the FBI seal in the 2 minutes I spent searching there, but the seal isn't overly complex, doesn't have micro text or any other anti-counterfeiting features.
However, this image, http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/fbiseal/images/fbiseal-02-02.gif [fbi.gov], is a fairly decent image and can easily be used to produce a better, larger image. (The image is slightly obfuscated by the web page dis-allowing right clicks. Good going, guys. Security by obscurity for the Win. I mean Lose.)
However, more interesting to me is this high-res image: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg [fbi.gov]
A high resolution image of an FBI badge. Yeah. They're concerned that a web image of their seal can be used illegally, but a badge? That's nothing to worry about. Move along.
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing how dimwitted most FBI administrators are? It has the word Wiki in it so it has to be connected to WikiLeaks.
Re:From the page itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
It probably doesn't protect the former any more than the latter.
Then again, it probably does protect images of the currency presented in the same way Wikipedia presented images of the seal. At least, if it doesn't, wikipedia has a lot more to worry about than the seal, since they also have images of US currency.
Re:Ummm what? (Score:3, Interesting)
That purpose, and the application of the law strictly within that purpose, is probably the only thing that makes it enforceable, given the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which trumps mere statute law.
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lots of these now offlimits offices, houses, etc. used to be freely accessible to the people who paid for them.
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then 9/11 happened and-- the whole place was closed off. They even welded the front gates shut. All visitors, who had to have a reason for coming, were sent through a quasi-militarized checkpoint, with armed police and metal detectors.
My brother visited me last fall, and we were in the neighborhood, and were pleasantly surprised that you can now enter the building freely again. You still have to walk through a metal detector, but gone are the "must have valid reason" restriction and the conspicuously armed guards. Which is good-- the State House has a whole variety of really interesting Colonial- and Civil War-era artifacts, and the flag room is pretty cool too.
Re:FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING (Score:1, Interesting)
http://lifehacker.com/5518076/hit-stop-+-stop-+-play-and-other-tricks-to-skip-dvd-trailers-and-warnings
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Interesting)
unless they have a warrant granting them other privileges, in which case they will just do what they have been authorized by a court to do.
That's where the trouble starts. Until they are satisfactorily identified, they're just some potentially dangerous person (the badge may be a fake, but that's not a water pistol he's carrying) trying to violate your home. It's not unreasonable to take unwillingness to await proper confirmation as a sign that they are not authentic. When someone tries to push into your home, it is reasonable to use force to prevent them. If they should use force against you, it is reasonable to escalate. In many states there is no duty to retreat in your own home, so it can quickly escalate to deadly force.
Thus, "no knock" warrants shouldn't exist except in the rare case where deadly force is justified per se.
Re:All links to this story (Score:3, Interesting)