Slashdot Mirror
FBI Instructs Wikipedia To Drop FBI Seal
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."
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...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Streisand in 3... 2...
since my browser cached the image.
Mike then referred to the FBI as a bunch of Nazis, and himself'd the argument.
In Capitalist America, Wikipedia sues FBI?
Wikipedia's lawyer Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes)
Yes, before anybody asks, it is indeed THAT Godwin, for whom the law is named.
Well you know what they say, the grade C lawyers work for the government while the grade A lawyers work for everyone else. As someone remarked about on another site, you almost had to wonder why the FBI picked this little fights, and if someone mistakenly thought Wikipedia was somehow related to the now infamous Wikileaks. Even just reading the FBI's correspondence you can tell they're seriously out of their depth.
Their seal is in other media. As a matter of reporting and reporting on the seal itself. It's in encyclopedias. WTF?
Clear this is one more government employee trying to justify his job. We're supporting far too many otherwise jobless people in the government. You hardly need more proof.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
or does the seal kind of resemble Muhammad?
"Whoever possesses any insignia... or any colorable imitation thereof... shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both"
Okay so I had to go and look this one up. Because there are so many ...'s that pretty much all of the information is missing. That sentence fracture they chose doesn't even mention any government insignia's, at first I thought ALL insignia's were outlawed.
Anyways, so here's the full deal.
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
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 (and where better to find information than Wikipedia) 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?
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. :)
Wikipedia is trying to pass as an FBI officer, obviously.
Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes)
You Nazi, stop restricting my free speech.
I guess all the criminals took the day off?
How long until the FBI just busts into the data center and starts confiscating servers?
So, the BBC display the image that is illegal to show?
Looks like the news site is going to be hit next!
And someone needs to tell those guys SVGs can scale up infinitely.
Someone in legal has screwed up royally wonder if PR will get them to drop this silliness or if they manage to be dumb enough to let this go to court.
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.
Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported]
Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Private Eye:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
[No further reply]
(Mike Godwin's response isn't quite that terse, but it's pretty close in tone. Read the letter (PDF) he sent the FBI.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
As far as I know there has never been a show that had the actual FBI symbol.
The members of the MPAA have a license to use the FBI seal in the unskippable intros of their DVDs.
Really, we are. If our "fellow" humans are seeing fit to make out lives more difficult than they need to be for no real benefit (as the FBI are doing with Wikipedia), then how the fuck are we suppose to progress as a race? We're wasting time and effort making up bullshit reasons for messing around with each other, suing each other and other legal threats for petty things like this, when all it does is increase stress levels and make us despise each other that little bit more.
It's amazing how much headache and pain would go away if people just chilled once in a while, so that we could live and let live.
Shove it up your Hoover.....
President Obama and his Democratic House of Representatives have been implementing socialist initiatives at the national level, unlike the Libertarians and the Tea Party movement that want to see these initiatives run at the state level if at all. But national socialism still doesn't make him a National Socialist.
Land of the Free! As long as you don't tell or show anything the government does not want to hear or see!
-- Cheers!
NY Times has more. Including links to PDF's of the response. Parts of which are also quite funny: “While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version” that the F.B.I. had provided.
So, they can't use the FBI's symbol, but it's okay that they use The President's Seal, The NSA Seal, the CIA Seal, and the DoD's seal? How does that begin to make sense?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
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. I doubt it's serious, but if they can smooth this over (in the courts) and not have massive public outcry, they know they can push more restrictions and governmental control.
IMO, this is the wrong government for Wikimedia to fight with, in this fashion. But I guess you've got to stand somewhere...
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
copyright seal
Waiting for the other shoe to...
1) Create Secret Agency 2) Assert rights of Feds 3) Profit!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
...you insensitive clods!
Although it is not quite as colorful, I personally loved the closing: "With all appropriate respect,"
Now that, dear friends, is irony.
Does this mean I have to get rid of my Female Body Inspector T-shirt?
But it WORKS, man! Some chicks actually believe it!
Stupid cockblocking FBI.
having now run out of national security related tasks, they shall now investigate on logo infringement.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
From what I can tell the problem here is that they didn't ask for permission before posting the image. Since it would be rediculous to prohibit the seal from appearing in encyclopedias and by extension wikipedia (if the average person can't find an image of the legit seal they can't verify the validity of any potential fraudulent seals) I suspect the problem is more to do with the FBI never having given permission, and therefore someone who wouldn't normally be allowed to deny permission has taken it upon themselves to enforce a questionable interpretation of the law.
The thinking probably went something like this:
Hey look at that our seal is on wikipedia. Wait a minut any two bit criminal with photoshop could put that on a leterhead and it would be indistingushable from an authentic one. I wonder if they have permission to have that seal. Hmm, looks like there's no record of them having permision. I better send a takedown notice.
Realy this is a symptom of government's mind set being outdated. requiering "official seals" as a means of identifying legit vs iligitimate documents has been a prety worthless security measure for some time now, but it'll be a while before that multi thousand year tradtion gets abandoned.
Without Wikipedia, how will we know that FBI seal looks like? If all references to the seal are removed everywhere, an evil super villain can forge ANY seal to pass off as an FBI seal, making forgery even easier.
wget http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg
Posting anonymously because i am now a outlaw.. at last in the US of A.
Most people in law enforcement consider the FBI a joke anyways...
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?
Just in case anyone wants to actually read it:
Section 701 of Title 18 of the US Code
Section 709 of Title 18 of the US Code
Section 712 of Title 18 of the US Code
The FBI must think that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are connected somehow.
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??
Initial letter from FBI and response by Wikimedia Foundation
Wikipedia article in question, image in question.
New York Times story (login). Britannica uses the logo
It's pretty bad when the Dept. of Justice has amateur lawyers.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
It makes perfect sense. The FBI seal has magickal Illuminati powers that become diluted when reproduced many millions of times on the internet, TV, comic books etc. They are just protecting their magickal powers. Wikipedia should not dabble with things they do not understand.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Did Someone In Authority(tm) tell his minions to crack down on Wikileaks, and one of the minions confused them with Wikipedia?
Infuriate left and right
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, 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
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.
except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law
Ah, so we're good, then.
Because the US government never pursues what it perceived to be criminal violations of US law if they are committed by people outside the borders of the US at the time of the offense. Just ask Manuel Noriega.
At any rate, other media outlets covering the story also display the seal, including Vanity Fair and The New York Times, which presumably are more exposed to US criminal laws than the BBC.
Is it just me or have the nutjobs slowly been taking over for the past 5-years
Dude. Have you ever volunteered to maintain Wikipedia? That's one of the least zany of the questions that people ask, Trust me.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I'm pretty sure that reproducing a government seal as part of a description of the relevant part of the government is the textbook definition of fair use. This isn't counterfeiting, impersonation, or any attempt to fool or misrepresent anyone. It is *helping* people learn to recognize the real FBI. Jeez....
So I have one of those blue baseball caps with white letters "FBI" on the front. I bought it from one of those street vendors in Washington DC. Is it legal to wear that in public? I know it looks just like the gear all the FBI guys wear on TV - especially the undercover ones.
:-)
On another note, I knew a guy who painted "Coast Guard" on his seaplane which was white with orange trim. He deliberately left off "U.S." in front of coastguard, and did not put their official seal. While this might have technically been legal, he ultimately removed it after several visits from the DHS. He did say (probably drunken) boaters would clear out when he landed
I say let's leverage the Streisand Effect by posting the image to facebook, flickr, etc.
I'm going to. The insignia is public domain and as an American citizen and taxpayer I can absolutely post the logo and say "Hey, isn't the FBI insignia really neat?"
Owning, possessing, and even displaying an insignia, patch, or badge is not in itself illegal. It is illegal to use those items to impersonate an officer. That is not what is going on here. They should have their attorney tell the FBI to fuck off. Honestly.
That the FBI does not like something does not make that thing illegal, especially when a work is public domain.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
No, I'm pretty sure it's just you.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
The funny part of all of this is that the news stories include the seal. :D
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It is improper (and potentially criminal) to use the FBI seal in any manner not approved by the FBI. What they are mostly concerned about is the appearance of an endorsement or approval. They do not endorse or approve anything. When the FBI tests something and approves it for internal use you cannot use this information in any way.
I assure you that if you have an FBI seal on a commercial site with the words "Approved by the FBI" your web site isn't going to last the day. They are very, very touchy about this sort of thing and will likely go to extreme lengths to get such materials taken down.
I don't believe it has anything to do with reproducing the image in the form of FBI credentials or a badge, although clearly that is going to get you in trouble as well. I believe their interest in not appearing to endorse or approve anything goes back to the origin of the FBI and problems they had dealing with state and local authorities, but I don't have anything specific in mind.
If the issue is with the high res nature of the SVG image (making it extremely easy for anyone to reproduce a convincing FBI ID, stationery etc.) then I think the sensible thing for Wikimedia to do would be to offer to replace that image with a lower resolution image. But of course this is the USA and the FBI have threatened legal action without first considering a reasonable conversation with Wikimedia. And Wikimedia have responded by saying they will defend themselves in court if necessary. Perhaps the reasonable discussion can still take place. Not if the lawyers can help it!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I guess they figured they could not get at wikileaks so they went after the next best thing.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Review the following statute:
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Clearly, we are not talking about the reproduction of an identification card or a badge. We are talking about an "or other insignia."
The FBI is apparently taking the position that "or other insignia" means just what it (alone) says.
The Wikipedia people are taking the position that you have to read the last clause of the sentence in the context of the entire sentence--in other words, that when Congress used "or other insignia," they meant that badges and identification cards are a kind of insignia and that "or other insignia" was meant to include only "other insignia" that are like badges or identification cards. This is very good argument that employs an interpretive tool (ejusdem generis) that is commonly used by the courts. You can make a very good argument that the seal for an entire agency is not an insignia of the same class as a badge or identification card used to identify an FBI agent.
A huge problem with the federales' position is that the statute involved is a criminal statute. Judges resolve doubts in the interpretation of a criminal statute in favor of the defendant. That is called the rule of lenity.
Wikileaks can buttress its best arguments with all kinds of slippery slope arguments. For example, does a tourist commit a crime when he takes a photograph of the FBI seal? When he gives it to his grandmother? When he posts it on Flickr?
These are not the only arguments, either.
This is just too silly.
Ian Copeland, the brother of one of the world's greatest drummers Stewart Copeland, got into business as a promoter. Riffing off of Stewart's band "The Police", and his other brother Miles' company the IRS (Illegal Records Syndicate), he decided to call it the FBI - Frontier Bookings International.
He was soon visited by a couple of FBI agents who told him he'd have to change the company's name. He basically laughed them out of the office, and then discovered REM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Copeland
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-30-2006-97810.asp
As a side note, all three brothers were fond of names that played with stern authorities, because they found out later in life their father was actually a covert agent for the CIA.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
That's the smell of a shit-storm on the horizon.
Boredom is bliss.
Get their name, then ask them the name of their boss (or secretary) and the office they work out of (ie - in which city their FBI office is).
Ask them to wait. You look up the number of that office in Google, not using the number on the card they give you.
You call their home office and ask to speak to his boss or his secretary. Tell them "There's a John Smith at my door claiming to be an FBI agent, and that he works for/with you. Can you describe him for me?"
This works for any official who comes knocking - police, meter readers... anyone.
But national socialism still doesn't make him a National Socialist.
You're trying to use word-choice to tie a group with one of the bloodiest regime in human history.
You missed the "doesn't". I was saying that there are no ties, despite the word choice that makes a comedic allusion to an Internet "law" attributed to someone who is now Wikipedia's lawyer.
And a pretty lame SVG file it is.
I went to Wikipedia and viewed source. The SVG looks like someone just took a seal image and ran line detection on it, then fixed it up a bit. They didn't use object cloning or text path or anything cool. It's just colored and filled line segments.
As the President of the United States, I hereby instruct you to cease and desist from bothering Wikipedia about this whole seal nonsense. It, like the war on terrorism, and the war on drugs, is a waste of time. Therefore, under the authority of the Constitution, I hereby pardon everybody who ever edits on Wikipedia, from any crime subject to Federal Jurisdiction, in perpetuity, ad infinitum, excelsior! Also, that whole Tax cut business? Screw it. No Tax Cuts for anybody who makes more than half of what I do.
Signed with http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Seal_Of_The_President_Of_The_United_States_Of_America.svg
Sounds like he may be a bit of a Nazi
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
IANAL but a quick review of case law brings up United States v Goeltz (1975, CA10 Utah), cert den (1975) 423 US 830 which basically said Enactment of 18 USCS 701 was intended to protect public against use of recognizable assertion of authority with intent to deceive.
Of course how a judge in another jurisdiction would look at this 35 years later is hard to say.
If Wikipedia is actually forced to remove the offending image it could be applied to insignias of any other government agency. I wonder if it would apply to the Great Seal of the United States.
I gave my Mom a call -- first time I've used that resource on Slashdot -- but she's the only person I know who still has a paper encyclopedia in the house. I asked her to look up the FBI. Interestingly enough, her copy of the "World Book" doesn't have a reproduction of the seal in the article. Just a picture of a couple of cadets at the training academy.
Don't know if they didn't include that because of this law or it just didn't make the cut given the space available. Either way, it's not there. I'd be interested in knowing if any other publisher includes the seal in the FBI entry.
And no, I don't live in her basement and she wasn't at your house, either.
I am not a crackpot.
Um, that's just not true. The federal government is indeed able to receive and possess copyrights. 17 USC Sec. 105:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
I don't know who told you that, but they don't know what they're talking about.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I barely notice them, just long enough to hit "skip to next".
It is one of the many advantages of using Linux I really like.
I mean come on, I paid for a movie on DVD and they expect me sit and watch a "Coming soon to DVD" previews for movies that hit the DVD budget bin years ago?
Having to sit through adds at the theater is bad enough.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
hmm...
"As an online discussion grows sooner or later it's going to attract Glenn Beck."
Fixed it. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
18 USC 701
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
you say unskippable, I say another lost sale
You say lost sale, I say what sale? Every DVD that I've received as a gift has had at least one unskippable element.
This section, 18 USC 701, has it's origins in the Act June 29, 1932, ch 306, 47 Stat. 342. The text as passed in 1932 is essentially the same as we have it today with some minor modifications. The bill was H.R. 10590 of the 72d Congress and the accompanying House Report was H. Rept. 72-1044. It's only a single page but it quotes an informative letter from the Attorney General from December 7, 1931:
It has come to the notice of the department that it is possible for any unauthorized person to procure from certain merchants or manufacturers badges and other insignia similar to or identical with those prescribed for the use of officers of the United States. You can readily appreciate the prejudice to the public occasioned by the use and possession of such badges and insignia by unauthorized persons.
That would indicate to me, along with the opinion in United States v Goeltz 513 F2d 193 (1975, CA10 Utah), cert. den. 423 US 830 (1975), that the FBI is overstepping the intent of the law here.
I believe that FBI have to concentrate on how to catch terrorists and not if a web site has the seal or not. Except if they believe that wikipedia is a terrorist organisation and the seal is some kind of weapon ready to explode...
Until the skies turn blue...
Until the air of freedom strikes us...
The FBI's page has a section on copyrights which links to the DOJ website. There's a section that discuss the use of seals and logos. Nowhere does it state that the unauthorized use of these marks will result in fines or imprisonment. It merely states that permission must be requested before using them. I'd say the risk of imprisonment comes if you use the seal to pass yourself as an FBI agent, but then that's another matter altogether.
The fact that the Wikipedia site features an SVG of the seal may be a little problematic. It makes it trivial to print high quality copies of the thing. I did a quick search of Google Images and while plenty of seals came up, none were anywhere near the quality of this one on Wikipedia. But the solution seems simple, replace it and a somewhat smaller JPG. But even then, it's a minor issue, someone with patience and skill could sit down in Illustrator and recreate the thing.
Despite all this, given that this is a government agency and Wikipedia an informational site what rules govern this case? I fail to see how the FBI has any case at all.
Actually, Wikimedia Commons' position is that the work is in the public domain as a product of . See the "Licensing" section of the image's wiki page.
Wikimedia do acknowledge that "other restrictions apply", not related to ownership or copyright. See the "Permission" section of the infobox on the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg
as a US citizen, your wages are paid with my tax dollars, your equipment is paid for with my tax dollars, your offices are paid for with my tax dollars, and that seal was also paid for with my tax dollars. considering as such, I grant Wikipedia to use the seal.
Can't the FBI find more meaningful ways to waste and abuse my tax dollars?
that does it for all the movies and TV shows that display the FBI seal.
(Door flys open, FBI agents jump in, guns drawn)
Agent 1: "Drop that seal!"
Wikipedia: "YIKES!" (Drops seal)
Seal: "Ork! Ork! Ork!"
Agent 2: "Look out! He has a penguin!"
Linus: "Now look here, I'm innocent, I have nothing to do with this!"
Free Martian Whores!
Wikipedia hosting the image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Seal
Or the FBI doing it themselves:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/financial/fcs_report052005/fcs_report052005.htm
both will have the same effect... remove one, you have to remove both.
But then again, if all images are removed, how are anyone to know how the 'real' seal looks?
It works like this:
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 we'll convene a committee to study the pony request, to which we will assign 8 congress-folk who know absolutely nothing about ponies, who will in turn assign the task to aides, who will consult with special interest groups, determining that there is nothing in the pony gift process that will benefit the congress-folk. After an interval corresponding most closely to the sunspot cycle (11 years), if all congress-folk are still in office, the aides will return a recommendation that the pony be altered to a certificate indicating VShael deserves a pony, and it will go to the president's desk for signature. Unfortunately, by this time, VShael will have expired in an unlikely but fatal Dvorak keyboard incident, so the certificate will go to the heirs, who will sell it on EBay for enough money to buy a small plastic snow-globe containing an even smaller plastic pony. If any congress folk lose their office during the process, it will be re-started or abandoned, depending upon how much money VShael donates to the appropriate congress folk's political war chests. Oh, and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects he FBI's choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If you'd read that site you'd realize that merely using the initials of our favorite three-letter agency is apparently illegal unless authorized. I feel bad for Fred Beavis Iacocco - maybe they'll give him a license.
I'm not sure which is dumber - that congress would pass a law this stupid, or that somebody would actually try to enforce it...
I know, it sounds stupid, but I have seen I don't know how many people blasting Wikipedia for the action of Wikileaks.
A brain is a really good thing. I think everyone should have one.
Moving.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Wikipedia is not the only place to get the seal. I went to the FBI's web site and found this:
http://www.fbi.gov/images/seal.gif
Not as good as the one on Wikiped which was extracted from a goverment PDF report. It is not hard to grab the seal from various government web sites and documents.
:)
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Several years ago I did a stint as a security guard. One of the things they taught us is that you never let anybody take your badge/ID card from you so that they can inspect it. They may look, but they may not handle.
Yeah, this is critical. It turns out that the gold paint on the security guard badges chips off really easy, exposing the white plastic underneath. When that happens, someone from HR has to go down to the gumball machine in the lobby and feed it quarters until another badge comes out. And that waste several dollars in quarters...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It seems that the FBI is falling a bit short of its historical Integrity quality, as proclaimed on the seal, these days.
...I wonder how Quinn Martin got away with it?
Given the astoundingly nonsensicalness of what the FBI seems to have done, here's my theory.
Some moron who works for the FBI woke up the other morning and got upset from hearing about the recent Wikileaks news. Not knowing what "wiki" is, he decided that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are the same thing, or in league with each other. Certainly it's a bunch of commie "freedom" and "open" somethingorother, probably influenced by shady people, hippies, and foreign powers. Why, did you know that people from all over the world can just write whatever they want on Wikipedia? And now it's compromising our national security! Well, I don't quite understand what's holding up the other agencies from getting to the bottom of this Wikipedia crap, but we're the god damned FBI and we will show some initiative. Let's go fuck with these Wikipedia people. Now, let's see if we can find something prima facie we can get them for. Aha! They have a web page with our logo on it!
Well, I just downloaded the .svg. I suggest everyone do the same. Put it up on Gnutella if you're feeling saucy.
And remember, Winners Don't Use Drugs.
I guess the USA was feeling left out with the whole Muhammad thing.
Now we got the FBI Seal which you shall not make images of, or the fbi gets butthurt.
Be seeing you...
Anyone know where I can get custom T-shirts printed?
That's a freakin' unicorn, not a pony. :)
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I can see why the FBI would want to avoid any true seal to be published, in order to avoid anyone forging a copy as the seal in their website is not the true seal you would find on a badge, as the one on wiki might be the true seal. This is something I have heard but can not confirm, how many FBI badges do you see in a day???
Anyways...as for the FBI not wanting it public, I agree, however, wiki is not breaking the law, as with an investigation, you need to show your badge when you site you credentials, and for anyone to know or be able to have a semblance of knowing if it is a true badge, you would have to have a place to compare to...which I believe is where wiki would come in....you would think the FBI website to be the best place...but wiki is probably more accurate....
It's a tough one to decide who should win if this goes to court.