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."
I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
that does it for all the movies and TV shows that display the FBI seal.
Maybe they've been infiltrated by agents of the RIAA...
Let it roll (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess I'm a criminal now... (Score:1, Insightful)
since my browser cached the image.
Government has bad lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the page itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
So uh, what exactly is their legal standing for keeping it up there? There must be more to it, but I can see how the FBI could read this and decide to sue them. :)
Slow day at the FBI (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess all the criminals took the day off?
Re:Government has bad lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this story probably shouldn't be tagged copyright. Assuming the seal was designed by the FBI itself, it's ineligible for copyright as a work of the federal government. (I guess in theory they could have purchased the design and copyright from a third party, but that seems unlikely). If there's a real law at stake, it's not copyright law, probably something to do with impersonating an official, etc.
Next up, the FBI will be suing Lostpedia for its relationship to Wikileaks (using wiki software) and its name that sounds suspiciously similar to "pedophilia."
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
How can one know what an FBI seal looks like if he has NEVER seen one?
Full quality reproductions (Score:2, Insightful)
As a designer, I can save and open up the svg file from wikipedia and print it at whatever resolution I want. If I was a forger, I could make fake FBI ID, passport, etc etc. Of course, even if that seal wasn't there, it wouldn't take me more than a day to re-create the seal from movies, arcade games, etc etc - just need a reference image. Wikipedia just cuts down the job for me. For example, I get corporate logo from wiki all the time to make brochures (client testaments). Sure beats recreating or contacting the respective marketing dept.
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe our feathered friend meant the seal shown with the written threats at the start of DVDs ?
Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't this seal be owned and payed for by the tax payers of the U.S.?
Re:Full quality reproductions (Score:3, Insightful)
This gets back into the argument on whether or not the criminal is the person handing you a gun or the person using it...
Just like anything Wikipedia is a tool. It doesn't make committing crime unavoidable. If you use it in a manner that is dubious in nature, you are breaking the law, not the person that gave you the seal image.
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
But how would we know what it looks like? (Score:2, Insightful)
Offical Seal -- What purpose can it serve? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, we use official seals to prove, or at least strongly suggest, the origin of authority. But what if someone comes to your door with "a" badge or "an" ID card you don't immediately recognize. Especially when dealing with someone in plain clothes, it would be rather beneficial to actually know which insignia is fake, which is real, and which comes from which department. But... if you aren't allowed to know in advance what an official insignia looks like, aren't you just making yourself susceptible to fraud?
It's the Wiki Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI must think that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are connected somehow.
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
> An FBI agent knocks on some guy's door. The guy asks to see some ID, and the FBI agent produces his official FBI badge. The guy takes one look at it and says,
> "You can't fool me, that's a fake...it looks nothing like the ones on the X-Files!"
That's actually an interesting point. How does one deal with authentication issues like that if faced with an Law-Enforcement officer? Sure they can...if they do things right, show you their badge but then what?
1. Do you have a right to actually take that badge and/or ID into your hands to inspect it fully?
2. Can you write the details down or make a scan/photo copy?
3. If you do not believe the ID, the seal or badge (and officer) to be authentically what/who they claim to be, do you still have to do what they say (and can you be charged with, for example, resisting arrest if so)?
4. If 3 is the case, what are the options to verify such ID's, seals etc.?
Re:Executive branch probing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah...... you better buy plenty of tinfoil hats... seriously that doesn't make much sense at all. A far simpler and logical explanation is that there are stupid lawyers at the FBI.
Re:Executive branch probing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just the Executive branch pushing - probing, if you will - to see how receptive the populace is becoming towards the encroachment of thoughtcrime and various other totalitarian abuses.
Really?
The way you've worded it, it sounds like you're saying that someone (fairly high-up) in the executive branch of government has an ongoing program of pushing boundaries, and that they (directly or indirectly) put pressure on an FBI lawyer to send out a marginal insignia-takedown request. This seems a little far-fetched to me. It seems simpler and more likely that it was just one or two FBI personnel who took it upon themselves to exert their power. (The suggestion that someone mistakenly linked "Wikipedia" and "Wikileaks" is quite plausible...) I doubt they thought there would be much reaction, and I really have trouble believing this is part of a deeply orchestrated (yet, somehow, totally secret) plot to investigate how pliable the US populace is.
Make no mistake: I recognize the abuses of government and the constant power-grabbing from citizen freedoms into governmental control. However this doesn't seem to be a massive conspiracy. It doesn't have to be. People in positions of power will tend to, as individuals, consolidate their power and push the boundaries wherever they can. Because so many people in government (especially those who aspire to positions of power and importance) are constantly pushing boundaries and trying to shift power from the people to themselves (perhaps indirectly, e.g. shifting power to companies in return for other favors), the net effect is that the government as a whole is constantly encroaching on freedoms and over-stepping their previous bounds.
So, again, I agree that the government is constantly expanding its power and this is worrisome and should be fought against. However I question whether it is really a conspiracy: it seems more likely to be an emergent phenomenon arising from the over-aspirations of individuals. (And groups of individuals, of course--small-scale conspiracies and power-grabs certainly exist.)
I point this out because to fight a problem one must understand its origin. Fighting an illusory conspiracy distracts from the real problem: that just about any person in a position of power will abuse that power. As such we need to be fighting for checks and balances that keep these power-grabs under control, not attacking a few figureheads of a potential conspiracy (after eliminating them, the next power-hungry people will just take their place!).
Re:Executive branch probing (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. [wikipedia.org] Though in this case, i would substitute "conspiracy" for "malice," because malice does appear to be all over all over this, petty and impotent though it may be.
It's more likely that this is just some ambitious idiot in the FBI who thought Wikipedia and Wikimedia were related to Wikileaks and decided to take a shot at them. He/she probably knows that they brought down Al Capone on tax evasion and thought this might be a chance to do something similar.
Re:Government has bad lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obama's national social programs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, THAT Godwin (Score:1, Insightful)
but why is no one asking these questions?
Glenn Beck is asking these questions!
I'm surprised he has time to ask these questions, what with all the raping and killing of young girls that he does. At least, that's what I've heard and he has never come out and denied it.
Re:FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING (Score:5, Insightful)
User operation prohibition on DVDs [wikipedia.org]. If your DVD player ignores them, it may be in violation of the DVD format license.
... and I'd like to know where you got it, because I would also like a DVD player that does what I want.
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yes, 4 is a valid badge number, so that's almost certainly a legitimate FBI guy."
OK, I guess we'll need to switch badge numbers to be the name the agent signed with a private key controlled by the FBI director.
Plus side: Anyone can verify that a badge belongs to a particular named person by checking against the public key.
Down side: Badge numbers are now 500 digits long and weigh 30 pounds.
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't follow a law they won't tell you about. You can't recognize the authority of someone who's 'proof' is probably something they made with a drawing program, you won't obey any idiot in a suit that claims they're from an unknown government agency. (If you want some of those, go to any bar on a weekend and wait.)
Now using a reproduction of their symbol and going around saying, "hey baby, I'm with the FBI" should get you slapped, and slapped in handcuffs, which is probably the law the FBI was referring to. But they have too many brain-dead egotistical douchebags there, and one of them apparently mistook Wikipedia for someone trying to impersonate an FBI agent. Hope his supervisor kicks him in the ass and demotes him to the guy that cleans out their robot mowers.
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
Suddenly I understand how think-of-the-children clauses end up in a road development bill.
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I don't believe the badge number on a police officer ID, why would I trust the phone number on it?
If they are fake they probably don't have access to the official database and will probably blindly confirm the ID of anyone calling in since they can't tell who is legit and who is fake. So test them first by asking to confirm some bogus information that you make up on the spot. If they won't confirm your own bogus info then they are probably legit.
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, I suspect VShael is much more likely to get a pony than we are to get Congress to represent us.
Re:I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't trust that phone number, look up the phone number yourself. Or (in the US) call 311.