Why French Govt's Attempt to Censor Wikipedia Matters 104
In the end, the Streisand Effect prevailed, as you might expect, when a French domestic intelligence agency apparently browbeat a French citizen into removing content from Wikipedia. The attention caused the Wikipedia entry on a formerly obscure military radio site (English version) to leap in popularity not only in French, but in languages where it was formerly far less likely to have been noticed at all. Lauren Weinstein makes the case, though, that this sort of move isn't just something to shrug at or assume will always end so nicely. "Even though attempts at Internet censorship will almost all fail in the end, governments and authorities have the capability to make groups' and individuals' lives extremely uncomfortable, painful, or even terminated — in the process of attempts at censorship, and equally important, by instilling fear to encourage self-censorship in the first place."
Re: Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is almost nothing without contributors, and french government can put a heavy presure on french contributors.
What wil be the result if each government acts the same way ?
This is the core problem in this case. If the French government, or in deed any government outside the US, wanted to go after Wikipedia, they would find that for all the Wikimedia Foundation is not a money making machine, there are plenty of legally trained people willing to leap to its defence. Plus it would be a great bit of American flag-waving, with the forces of Goodness, Truth and The American Way protecting US Citizens from the corrupt/socialist/communist/feminist/European/Chinese/Arab/terrorist/non-Hollywood/pirate/non-Christian (delete as appropriate) evils.
If the US government wants to shut it down, one call from any number of unaccountable officials in shadowy agencies could pretty much bury the whole thing.
On the other hand, if a government wants to go after the contributors, they are much less likely to have any legal training, backup or knowledge of how the law works, and a couple of big guys with official-looking badges suddenly become very effective at getting the contributor censored.
Re: Response (Score:5, Informative)
If the US government wants to shut Wikipedia down then they would have to shut down a rather large number of replica sites as well, the content is backed up all over the world in many cases outside the control of the USofA ....
They could fairly quickly kill the master site (to huge protest around the world) but the content would be safe elsewhere ...
Re: (Score:1)
Can't stop the signal Mal
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you include my evil in you list! I'm Discordian, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
In the case at hand, the side of the law would not be clear. The infrastructure is classified. Wikimedia claims all information is publicly available, DCRI claims the contrary, not clear who would won the case, even if Wikimedia was the body being attacked.
In fact, the backlash of the population is the best protection of Wikimedia, rather than court.
Re: Response (Score:5, Insightful)
What wil be the result if each government acts the same way ?
You can't talk like that. We need to give a gang of people the power to steal, kidnap, and murder or else we'd have gangs of people stealing, kidnapping, and murdering.
Re: Response (Score:4, Interesting)
But, governments DO act that way. Show me one government that; if it doesn't do it's dirty work openly, doesn't have a "secret" agency of some other advertised value, that handles it's hoodlum urges. Governments do as they please, because once in power, they find that those they are to serve are more valuable as an asset to their aspirations as a crop, or commodity , if you will, than a master of their industry. Governments who aren't SPECIFICALLY relegated to sundry maintenance of the peoples general interests and well being,and kept that way, grow corrupt and wild as Kudzu or Ragweed. It then takes bloody revolution to separate their desire for money and power from actual governance, like bombing a field with herbicide.
Wouldn't it be nice to just have a Worldwide Revolt Day and just turn the whole shithouse upside down, then begin again?
Re: (Score:1)
Just as likely to end up with a far worse situation than a far better one.
So a 50% chance of things getting better, vs a 100% chance of them not.
Depending on how bad things are right now, I just might take those odds.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be nice to just have a Worldwide Revolt Day and just turn the whole shithouse upside down, then begin again?
Not if you ended up with some libertarian/Randian hellhole, with a few rich well-armed people in control instead of the at least partly democratically accountable existing governments, no.
Re: Response (Score:4, Interesting)
Wealthy political and banking elites are in control right now. Your "partly democratically accountable" governments are just a facade and I think you probably know it.
Even if rich well-armed people were directly "in control", any acts of aggression, theft, kidnapping and murder would be clearly recognized as criminal behavior. Plenty of well armed poor people could put a stop to that. When the same wealthy elites use "government" as their intermediary, the extortion and intimidation of the population is done under the color of "law" and their violence is legitimized.
Re: (Score:2)
some libertarian/Randian hellhole ... at least partly democratically accountable existing governments
The body count for those governments, for the 20th Century, is about 320 Million [hawaii.edu], for the last century. The proof of burden lies with those who conjecture that a system based on freedom and liberty would do worse. To be fair, the insane Objectivists are war-mongers, Rand included, so let's not group opposites together and treat them as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
" instead of the at least partly democratically accountable existing governments, no."
There are rumors of such entities, but I think the media started it.
I don't think the Repubmocrat tyranny qualifies anyway, if that was your point. I don't think I'd hand the keys over to this generations weak ass Libertarians either.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Peter Fonda in that movie?
Re: Response (Score:4, Informative)
"Show me one government that; if it doesn't do it's dirty work openly, doesn't have a "secret" agency of some other advertised value, that handles it's hoodlum urges. "
Iceland?
Re: (Score:2)
No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies#Iceland [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Owned and operated by New Zealand for all the big stuff, but, Villages are entitled to enact their own laws regulating their daily lives and New Zealand law only applies where it has been extended by specific enactment. Serious crime is rare and there are no prisons - offenders are publicly rebuked, fined or made to work
So....I guess local government gets its dirty work done openly upon availability, Their overlords in NZ are too busy working for the MAFIAA to extend assets toward their charge . I suspect m
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikipedia is almost nothing without contributors, and french government can put a heavy presure on french contributors.
What wil be the result if each government acts the same way ?
Anonymity. Wikipedia simply needs to do more to protect the identities of its contributors. If necessary, enable Tor edits. Vandalism is a small price to pay compared to censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the latter will happen, but with frequent and feeble attempts to change that.
Re:Response (Score:5, Interesting)
There was this boat in New Zealand [wikipedia.org] that pissed the French off that one time...
Immense pressure (Score:5, Informative)
Let me quote from a blog post [wikimedia.fr] that paints an even darker picture than the original story I submitted on /.
DCRI summoned a Wikipedia volunteer in their offices on April 4th. This volunteer, which was one of those having access to the tools that allow the deletion of pages, was forced to delete the article while in the DCRI offices, on the understanding that he would have been held in custody and prosecuted if he did not comply. Under pressure, he had no other choice than to delete the article, despite explaining to the DCRI this is not how Wikipedia works. [...]
This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices. He was chosen and summoned because he was easily identifiable [...]
Can you imagine the pressure they put this volunteer through? Threatening him with five years of prison [legifrance.gouv.fr] if he does not immediately comply and delete the article in the intelligence agency's offices? You think that doesn't matter?
Re: (Score:1)
Lucky they did not have a keyboard sniffer or SSL-stripper installed to capture his admin credentials for future use. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3)
...and it is still not permanently deleted, and can be undeleted anytime, or is almost certainly backed up, or at worst is stored at Delitionpedia ....
they do not know how this works do they ....
Re: (Score:1)
If the US does decide to censor Wikipedia, where will it move to, and how can we be sure they're safe there? The US is not averse to throwing its weight around. Also domains can be seized by the FBI without any form of due process, which would cause problems even if there are workarounds.
Why cant governments understand (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Internet cannot be controlled" was certainly the belief in the late 90s, when it seemed that governments were just too stupid to grasp this whole Internet thing, and would always be several steps behind. Alas, the joy didn't last long, and it was precisely France who started fighting [wikipedia.org] against this new "power" of the people.
Several people (Jonathan Zittrain, Tim Wu, Bruce Schneier, Yochai Benkler, among others) have written a lot ab
Re: (Score:2)
"Alas, the joy didn't last long..."
That's precisely why we need to act against things like CFAA, and -- perhaps most important -- come up with a workable distributed DNS-type system.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people (by far) in Scandinavia don't have any religion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really pathetic watching neocolonial fanboys tear apart any non-western nation censoring anything yet always finding reason and righteousness when a Western government does it. If you are going to tout freedom and other ideological bs, at least maintain consistency.
Your post is the 4th top level post on the page. There are exactly zero neocolonial fanboys or even mentions of non-western nations above your post.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the wrong side of Greenwich. Well, most of it is.
Of course the prime meridian would run through Paris instead if the frogs weren't cheese eating surrender monkeys.
Color me unsurprised. (Score:2, Troll)
Fear will keep them in line, for everything else, there's the Patriot Act, that is, until the Death Star becomes a reality.
Ob Pratchett (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ob Pratchett (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a Jewish diabetic you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:1)
nu-uh, we're going to make out OWN government with blackjack and hooke... wait, that's what they all say isn't it? *sadface*
Re:Ob Pratchett (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, bacon smells like bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick: the quote is not from Pratchett, and probably isn't from Twain either [twainquotes.com].
intimidation (Score:5, Insightful)
"Even though attempts at Internet censorship will almost all fail in the end, governments and authorities have the capability to make groups' and individuals' lives extremely uncomfortable, painful, or even terminated — in the process of attempts at censorship, and equally important, by instilling fear to encourage self-censorship in the first place."
Wikileaks comes to my mind
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
What was that reason again? Abdulrahman al-Awlaki thinks (or, I think would have thought) the Bill of Rights is about as useful as an empty zigzag box.
If you didn't know, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is the son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Both were US citizens executed via drone missile in Yemen on orders of Obama. Anwar was "the spokesperson" of Al-Qaeda.
Just to be clear, the 16 year old US citizen son of a man supposedly exercising his 1st amendment rights was executed on the orders of the President without a trial,
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
What was that reason again? Abdulrahman al-Awlaki thinks (or, I think would have thought) the Bill of Rights is about as useful as an empty zigzag box.
If you didn't know, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is the son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Both were US citizens executed via drone missile in Yemen on orders of Obama. Anwar was "the spokesperson" of Al-Qaeda.
Just to be clear, the 16 year old US citizen son of a man supposedly exercising his 1st amendment rights was executed on the orders of the President without a trial, charges, judge, jury, conviction, or indeed any judicial review whatsoever, away from any field of battle. What was the charge against the 16 year old child? Who knows. But according to Robert Gibbs, Abdulrahman "should have [had] a far more responsible father". Direct quote.
The Bill of Rights... If by bill you mean "I owe money"... maybe.
Indirect quote, sorry. I didn't personally hear it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html [huffingtonpost.com] did.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks comes to my mind
Wikileaks does not come to my mind, but the government response to wikileaks does.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks does not come to my mind, but the government response to wikileaks does.
Bradley Manning didn't have the humility not tell someone he did a good deed, and in this world it isn't a joke when you say "no good deed goes unpunished".
It is information warfare. Do the math. Work in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
Njet! Pravda!
(I just noticed that /. doesn't accept Cyrillic letters. Hope that was transliterated correctly).
Who is Laura Weinstein (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's Lauren Weinstein. pinhead. http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Re:Who is Laura Weinstein (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Lauren is a French girl name meaning "crowned with laurel."
Re: (Score:2)
The bar for being 'well enough known' to have a Wikipedia entry is pretty damn low - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Bonesteel_III [wikipedia.org]. Basically it amounts to having somebody with enough time on their hands to write the article, and not having anyone who cares enough challenge it's existence.
Similar case in Russia (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, though slightly different.
Since the Russian Wikipedia is hosted in the US, there's not much that can be done there.
If any part of your infrastructure is located in a country that has declared itself hostile to your business, then you're doing it wrong.
ISPs might be asked to block the Russian Wikipedia, but that tends to go over so well with local populations. So, if Russia enjoys riots they can go that route.
A more likely route is to let the Wikimedia foundation members and donors know they wo
Re: (Score:2)
Covering up prime para-boarding location (Score:1)
Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites (Score:5, Informative)
How Google And Bing Maps Control What You Can See [buzzfeed.com]
http://gizmodo.com/5907421/the-dutch-have-the-weirdest-google-maps-censorship [gizmodo.com]
and of course wikipedia's article on Map censorship by google and microsoft [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"The map providers make their money (be it directly or through advertising) on the basis of providing the general public with useful maps. These maps are mostly used for planning routes or sightseeing of a remote area. "
Actually I think the map providers make their money by supplying governments, including governments which have their own expensive mapping projects, with useful maps.
There is so much security & classification that one government agency can find it difficult to impossible to obtain even d
Re: (Score:1)
Three things wrong with this case, however:
1. The French facility is not
Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
In Russia Wikipedia is giving up to the political pressure to remove or edit a page on Cannabis smoking [wikipedia.org] (Russian version of the page [tinyurl.com]).
I can't fully understand what exactly on that page provoked the government reaction, but apparently there are a number of pages that the Russian gov't is set against (suicide, methamphetamine, bong, amphetamine, The Complete Manual of Suicide - the page on a Japanese book).
In any case, the Russian government is engaged in censorship against Internet sites [livejournal.com] and other "extremist" materials [minjust.ru], which include books, articles, music, images, etc.
Apparently too many people around the world just can't come to grips with the fact that trying to stop proliferation of information on the Net is a stupid idea, but hey, laws don't have to be intelligent. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for survival, apparently it's also not a prerequisite for governing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's purpose is to waste your time so you don't find the real facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Best guess [wikipedia.org], linked from Wikipedia page about Rosnay [wikipedia.org].
The coordinates match, and the shape of the facility is about right.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no "French Intelligence Agency" -- or CIA, or whatever -- there is a group of individual people who make individual decisions to promote or deny freedom, while saying they are part of something greater, so as to confuse people.
I think you're the one that's confused, mate. Maybe you shouldn't have stopped your medication? If I were you I'd get to a hospital soon, before you do yourself or anyone else any harm.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means something else.
CIA, DCRI and all other intelligence agencies are merely tools, impartial, indifferent organizations following orders. They do very little on their own accord.
The actual culprits are something else. Some of them may be employees of these agencies, but whether they are or not is moot - they may be members of the government, or just of nameless shadow cabinet (and no, no imagery of secret meetings in secluded manors behind hidden doors. Just influential businessmen, former mili
One thing this tells me ... (Score:2)
... is that we can no longer hire French citizens for telecommute work on sensitive jobs.
Oxymoron (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You are defending the LIFEWORK of a PORN dealer
get over your little righteous selves
Y'know, even if we accept the conclusion that dealing in porn is evil, would that more upstanding citizens had projects nearly as worth defending...
Re:People really Boggle my mind (Score:5, Insightful)
You are defending the LIFEWORK of a PORN dealer
I. What the fuck are you talking about?
II. What's the problem with porn dealers or their lifework?
III. Presupposing your argument has any merit*:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H. L. Mencken
* I don't believe your argument has merit, but I do believe that Mencken's quote is applicable to the general viewpoint you've expressed.
Re: (Score:2)
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H. L. Mencken
Mencken is not quoted enough these days. The man was a genius. Social and political commentary that is still relevant 50 or 100 years later... scares me.