Hacker News Reader

Comment by mseebach | Hacker News Reader

A couple of points:

- 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.

View on HN

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!

It's not an issue for US citizens. It's an issue France has to resolve, and believe me, I'm reading through the french comments and a shitstorm is going to happen.

Note that DCRI is not just any agency, it is the French equivalent of FBI.

Also the "kid" they bullied is not a kid at all, and he is the president of Wikimedia France.

Well, that makes it all better then.

For all the whining about US-centricism on HN, let people take an interest in France for once.

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.

The situation is not so clear with respect to information classified as Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data under the Atomic Energy Act. See US vs. The Progressive.

True, that issue was never actually decided. The courts don't usually take an interest-balancing approach with respect to freedom of speech though. It seems unlikely that kind of restriction would be upheld.

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.

> and this case is just another example of that extra-judicial nonsense

We don't actually know that, this is an assumption.

> when DCRI threatened an unrelated individual then they lost their credibility.

Yes, obviously, DCRI bungled the handling of the case. That doesn't make the case meritless.

The case still has merit, I am in no way debating that, however DCRI has to maintain a relationship with Wikimedia (and other similar organizations) and this callous disregard for that relationship is unsettling to say the least.

In that case, the main source for the article was a video made by a french local channel with the approval of the military http://www.tl7.fr/la-base-militaire-de-chalmazel-1981.html

> - 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?

Yes, there is a certain catch-22. I'm guessing that there is precedence in how intelligence services interact with the press. Surely, similar issues come up from time to time there.

> if they have no idea what that information is?

Reminds me of this case in 2007 in China. A newspaper ad "Paying tribute to the strong(-willed) mothers of June 4 victims" slipped through the censorship, because the young clerk had no idea that June 4 is a reference to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the talking of which is not allowed. Because she had never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests, because censorship had been so effective.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/06/us-china-tiananmen...

How is Wikimedia foundation subject to the laws of France?

That's the question, isn't it? See also the France vs. Twitter scuffle[1]

[1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/twitter-sued-50-m...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com