Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Instructs Wikipedia To Drop FBI Seal

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the teach-the-seal-tricks dept.

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."

59 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. I guess... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, 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...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can one know what an FBI seal looks like if he has NEVER seen one?

    2. Re:I guess... by easyTree · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe our feathered friend meant the seal shown with the written threats at the start of DVDs ?

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    3. Re:I guess... by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't this seal be owned and payed for by the tax payers of the U.S.?

    4. Re:I guess... by causality · · 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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:I guess... by eln · · Score: 3, Funny

      How can one know what an FBI seal looks like if he has NEVER seen one?

      I can see it now:

      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!"

    6. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But since they are not breaking the law... wait, what the fuck is the issue here? I have a knife... watch out, I *could* break the law!

    7. Re:I guess... by VShael · · Score: 5, Funny

      If Congress represented us,

      Oh, since we're in Imaginationland, can I have a pony?

    8. Re:I guess... by muckracer · · 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.?

    9. Re:I guess... by inerlogic · · Score: 3, Funny

      is it a doubled edged blade? a stiletto? over 4" long?

      because yes, it'd be illegal to carry in quite a few states....

    10. Re:I guess... by DMiax · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is ok I guess...

      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 and VShael had a pony, 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.

    11. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

      They probably got wikileaks confused with wikipedia. After all, all wikis are alike right?

    12. Re:I guess... by delinear · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the FBI get a seal it's only fair if we all get ponies.

    13. Re:I guess... by grumpyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude, seriously, all government stuff are paid for by taxpayers of the US. I don't think we have access to the whitehouse.

    14. Re:I guess... by frosty_tsm · · Score: 3, Funny
      No no no, it goes like this:

      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 VShael can get a pony 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?"

    15. Re:I guess... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can have a pony WITH a FBI seal of approval. The seal likes fish.

    16. Re:I guess... by Maarx · · Score: 5, Funny

      I had myself a nice chuckle at the very clear attempt at humor.

      Then I nearly shit myself when I realized how possible this is.

    17. Re:I guess... by marcobat · · Score: 3, Funny

      What happened is that someone high up working at the FBI was wondering what's their job about anyway... So she decided to look it up on wikipedia...

    18. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Texas all police officer ID's are required to have a telephone number that is available 24.7 to verify the officer's status. I let people see, touch, hold my IDs upon request. However, I would never allow a copy to be made for two big reasons: I don't want to make the ID easier to fake, and I don't want them having my picture, full name, etc to sell to drug cartels.

      Also, local/state police IDs are generally look like a 5th grader made it. If the ID looks really nice it is probably a fake.

    19. Re:I guess... by Darth · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. In my experience, yes. The FBI agent I interacted with let me take his badge and look at it to my satisfaction.

      2. I didn't try to photo copy his badge, but i doubt he would have cared if i had written down his details.

      3. Not believing he's an agent does not make him not an agent and does not absolve you of your responsibilities regarding interacting with law enforcement. Also, you cannot be charged with resisting arrest unless they are arresting you for something already. I knew a guy in college who was arrested for resisting arrest and nothing else. The cop's commanding officer tore the cop apart when he tried to book him just for resisting arrest (my friend was released and the c.o. apologised to him...didn't give him a ride home though).

      4. generally you can call the fbi and they can verify the identity of the officer.

      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.?

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    20. Re:I guess... by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As an interesting example of government working the other way (i.e., more access), you are now able again to walk around freely in the Massachusetts State House. When I was in college (in the 90's), I worked for a catering company that regularly did State House events, and we pretty much had free run of the place. During the downtime when we did those events (usually when some politician was making some long-winded speech), we would "sled" on the food dollies down the long, beautifully flat marble floors. We were once tsk-tsked by a State Police officer who caught us doing this, but he couldn't hide his smirk, and that was the worst that ever happened.

      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.

    21. Re:I guess... by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

      http://www.chriscanfield.net/Offsite/fbiRobocopPony.jpg

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    22. Re:I guess... by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It cites the law the FBI quoted. That does not mean the quoted law applies. They also cite this on the image URL:

      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.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg

      In order for the FBI law to have bearing, I believe Wiki's defense is that they basically state right on the image page that it is a public domain image, they cite the laws prohibiting specific uses of the image, which pretty much prevents anyone from misunderstanding that their looking at an image of the seal, not the official seal.

      U.S.C. 701 would seem to refer to 709 and 712, neither of which would apply here. Wiki is not misrepresenting itself as a government agency (709), or attempting to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States (712).

      701. Official badges, identification cards, other insignia
      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.

        709. False advertising or misuse of names to indicate Federal agency

        712. Misuse of names, words, emblems, or insignia
      Whoever, in the course of collecting or aiding in the collection of private debts or obligations, or being engaged in furnishing private police, investigation, or other private detective services, uses or employs in any communication, correspondence, notice, advertisement, or circular the words “national”, “Federal”, or “United States”, the initials “U.S.”, or any emblem, insignia, or name, for the purpose of conveying and in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States or in any manner represents the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    23. Re:I guess... by Confusador · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Suddenly I understand how think-of-the-children clauses end up in a road development bill.

    24. Re:I guess... by sjames · · Score: 3, 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.

    25. Re:I guess... by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, I suspect VShael is much more likely to get a pony than we are to get Congress to represent us.

    26. Re:I guess... by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Informative

      no, actually I don't think I'd be surprised.. Let me quick copy and paste the most important part, wikipedia's reply.

      "Entertainingly, in support for your argument, you included a version of 701 in which you removed the very phrases that subject the statute to ejusdem generis analysis. 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 of Section 701 that you forwarded to us.

      In your letter, you assert that an image of an FBI seal included in a Wikipedia article is "problematic" because "it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations" of 18 U.S.C. 701. I hope you will agree that the adjective "problematic," even if it were truly applicable here, is not semantically identical to "unlawful." Even if it could be proved that someone, somewhere, found a way to use a Wikipedia article illustration to facilitate a fraudulent representation, that would not render the illustration itself unlawful under the statute. As the leading case interpreting Section 701 points out, "The enactment of 701 was intended to protect the public against the use of a recognizable assertion of authority with intent to deceive." ... Our inclusion of an image of the FBI Seal is in no way evidence of any "intent to deceive," nor is it an "assertion of authority," recognizable or otherwise."

  2. Let it roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Streisand in 3... 2...

  3. Yes, THAT Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wikipedia's lawyer Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes)

    Yes, before anybody asks, it is indeed THAT Godwin, for whom the law is named.

    1. Re:Yes, THAT Godwin by Itninja · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, the Nazis had lawyers too. Not saying Wikipedia supports Nazism, but why is no one asking these questions?

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  4. Government has bad lawyers? by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Government has bad lawyers? by langelgjm · · 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."

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:Government has bad lawyers? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative
      So just hotlink to their site and tell them to go f***^Warrest themselves.

      Or, better yet, photoshop to these - and caption them as you wish. It expressly states

      High Resolution Photographs
      These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.

      Or just hotlink to them, along with your choice framed captions :-)

    3. Re:Government has bad lawyers? by Fantom42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      I'm just curious if you read the law. Because it sure reads to me like Wikipedia is in violation of the letter of the law.

      TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 701
      § 701. Official badges, identification cards, other insignia
      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.

      The fact is that Wikipedia has a super high resolution print quality and SVG image of the seal which could be used to manufacture fake credentials. This fact might explain why they are going after Wikipedia and not other places. In fact the FBI letters suggests this much.

      I guess its easy to just unsubstantiatedly bash our government. At least you didn't start invoking conspiracy theories about this being some first step in the invokation of some quasi martial law state, like some other people have commented.

    4. Re:Government has bad lawyers? by glassbeat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love those. Hilarious how all the stock photos are like, "Hey look at all the diversity in our workforce!" Meanwhile, the directors are, of course, all old white guys.

    5. Re:Government has bad lawyers? by digitig · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm just curious if you read the law. Because it sure reads to me like Wikipedia is in violation of the letter of the law.

      Look at Wikipedia's response, which explains why they believe the FBI to be misinterpreting the letter of the law.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  5. Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    or does the seal kind of resemble Muhammad?

  6. Ummm what? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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?

    1. Re:Ummm what? by talz13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "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.

      Don't you know that the FBI has William Shatner as their lawyer? Those weren't omissions, they were just accurately quoting his speech!

    2. Re:Ummm what? by batquux · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, it's even worse than the original.. it should say:

      "Whoever ... possesses any ... insignia ... or any colorable imitation thereof ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both."

      This is fun, you could say:

      "... the head of any department or agency of the United States ... shall be ... imprisoned ... "

    3. Re:Ummm what? by melikamp · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's more fun when you quote individual letters:

      ...n...u...k...e... ...the... ...w...h...a...l...e...s...

  7. It's the 'Law' by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes)

    You Nazi, stop restricting my free speech.

  8. Slow day at the FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess all the criminals took the day off?

  9. FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      User operation prohibition on DVDs. 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.

  10. More Details by Lensman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. Let me get this straight... by somaTh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  12. T-shirt by boristdog · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  13. The actual law.. by Binkleyz · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  14. It's the Wiki Thing by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The FBI must think that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are connected somehow.

  15. FBI logo available on AP Graphics Bank by Anonymous Coward · · 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??

  16. Re:Executive branch probing by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, 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!).

  17. All links to this story by saibot834 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  18. Re:Executive branch probing by theghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. 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.

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
  19. Re:Obama's national social programs by Sovetskysoyuz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... and tepples sets a new benchmark for excellence in the category of "Best Logical Gap Between A Post And Its Parent".

  20. Re:From the page itself... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    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. :)

    What basis for Wikipedia to keep it up? Really?

    As the lawyer for Wikipedia points out in his reply to the FBI:

    I broadly hinted that ejusdem generis, a standard accepted canon of statutory
    construction, demonstrates that this statute is inapposite to the use of an image of the seal on an
    encyclopedia.

    If you're making a factual statement like "This is the FBI seal", you're not exactly saying "I'm the FBI, fear me". Basically the lawyer thinks the FBI are willfully misreading/misrepresenting a statute to try to get wikipedia to pull something down which they are using as purely a reporting of facts.

    He also points out that they're selectively ignoring the words in the statute that circumscribe the applicability of the statute as cited by the FBI.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  21. Hard Copy Encyclopedia by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  22. FBI Instructs Wikipedia To Drop FBI Seal by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  23. Unfortunately... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.