Slashdot Mirror


Why French Govt's Attempt to Censor Wikipedia Matters

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."

104 comments

  1. Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    It doesn't. Wikipedia is located in the US. When the US government decides to censor Wikipedia, then it will matter (and Wikipedia will move someplace else).

    1. Re: Response by feathersmg · · 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 ?

    2. Re: Response by Stolpskott · · 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.

    3. Re:Response by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was this boat in New Zealand that pissed the French off that one time...

    4. Re: Response by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Response by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It does matter that a democratic nation that does have a constitutional right to freedom of speech can browbeat people into removing content.

      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.

    6. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re: Response by flyneye · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    8. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all those other revolutions worked? Just as likely to end up with a far worse situation than a far better one.

    9. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do allow Tor edits if one has an account. That seems like a reasonable compromise.

      There's no requirement that accounts be associated with a specific individual and one could use a different account for each edit, if they wished.

    10. Re: Response by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re: Response by JasterBobaMereel · · 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 ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    12. Re: Response by mbkennel · · Score: 3, 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?

    13. Re: Response by moeinvt · · Score: 3, 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.

    14. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trees will have a hard time having so many governments' members hanging on ropes from their branches...

    15. Re: Response by dcw3 · · Score: 1
      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    16. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "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?

      Hate to break it to you...

    17. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    18. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iceland?
      Aren't these the same people that are going to block porn from the country, so much for that example.

    19. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why it is so important to have methods to transfer money anonymously.

    20. Re: Response by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      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, 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.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    21. Re: Response by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you include my evil in you list! I'm Discordian, you insensitive clod!

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    22. Re: Response by Meeni · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re: Response by oso · · Score: 1

      Can't stop the signal Mal

    24. Re: Response by flyneye · · Score: 1

      " 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.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    25. Re: Response by Askmum · · Score: 1

      The ultimate end-effect is that either everybody is getting killed by their or other state's secret services, or goverments understand that they can not regulate this.
      I think the latter will happen, but with frequent and feeble attempts to change that.

    26. Re: Response by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      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.

      Tokelau?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    27. Re: Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far more likely you'd end up with another Arab-spring debacle, where the control-freaks enslave the anarcho-libertarians and use their labor to build bigger-stronger-less accountable gangs.

    28. Re: Response by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Peter Fonda in that movie?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re: Response by flyneye · · Score: 1

      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 murderers will build the roads or scoop out the atoll or something. Pickpockets could collect taxes or something. I dunno use your imagination. 1400 people....NZ looking the other way...sounds like they could run naked in the streets with demon rum, marijuana and illegal downloads with no problems. No government.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. Why cant governments understand by prasadsurve · · Score: 1

    that internet cannot be controlled. It is probably the last bastion of freedom (away ahead of Scandinavian democracies).

    1. Re:Why cant governments understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those Scandinavian democracies are only 'bastions of freedom' if you are the right ethnicity, religion, and are born there.

      What's your point?

      Each group of people could create this type of society if they wanted to or were capable of doing so.

    2. Re:Why cant governments understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I didn't realize I have to have some specific religion to be free around here. Would you tell me more, as I didn't realize i'm not free. How the fuck would anyone even know what my religion is? I'm totally free to believe in old norwegian gods, christian god, allah, muhammed, mohammeds toes, camels, cows, stones, spirits of the forest, satan, jesus, lucifer, pink unicorns, or nothing at all.

      Also, we don't always lock all american into prisons, we do have free roaming ones. Or which ethnicity did you have in mind?

    3. Re:Why cant governments understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most people (by far) in Scandinavia don't have any religion.

    4. Re:Why cant governments understand by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      Because that's not true: it can and it is controlled, all the time.

      "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 against this new "power" of the people.

      Several people (Jonathan Zittrain, Tim Wu, Bruce Schneier, Yochai Benkler, among others) have written a lot about this. Actually, Schneier and Zittrain gave a talk about it, last week in Harvard.

      Internet is definitely not what it used to be, or what it seemed like it would be.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    5. Re:Why cant governments understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you havent been to any scandinavian contries in a while have you? 60 years or so perhaps?

    6. Re:Why cant governments understand by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "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.

  3. Zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.

    1. Re:Zero credibility by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's not the point, S/D is full of neo-con fanbois

    3. Re:Zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      At what point is France not in the western hemisphere?

    4. Re:Zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an odd way to abbreviate /.

    5. Re:Zero credibility by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. Ever heard of a DA notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A link to a blog post of someone who thinks the internets are special where anything goes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA-Notice

    1. Re:Ever heard of a DA notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  5. Color me unsurprised. by blackicye · · Score: 1, Troll

    Fear will keep them in line, for everything else, there's the Patriot Act, that is, until the Death Star becomes a reality.

  6. Ob Pratchett by blarkon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A lie can make its way around the world before the truth can get its boots on. In our pre-distopia state, we're still dealing with Governments that think that blocking something is the best way to make it disappear. It won't be long though until they figure out that telling people lies that they want to believe is a far more effective way of burying the truth than redacting it. So enjoy the dumb governments, corporations, and political groups for as long as you can - because when your generation gets into the control seat, the bullshit isn't going to smell like bullshit, it's going to look and taste like sugar or bacon (choose appropriate tasty thing)

    1. Re:Ob Pratchett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a Jewish diabetic you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Ob Pratchett by Anonymous Coward · · 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*

    3. Re:Ob Pratchett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible to fight back against the lies too, but we have one huge disadvantage in that fight.

      We've spent the last century or so developing the practice of marketing to a fine art. The advertising industry is a vast army of professional liars and manipulators, and they're very good at what they do. Their services can be bought by almost anybody who has the money, and the skills are transferrable. Propoganda is just marketing an idea.

    4. Re:Ob Pratchett by shentino · · Score: 4, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, bacon smells like bullshit.

    5. Re:Ob Pratchett by DKlineburg · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, the bacon smells you.

      --
      Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
    6. Re:Ob Pratchett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA, the bacon has dogs to do the sniffing.

    7. Re:Ob Pratchett by Opyros · · Score: 1

      A lie can make its way around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

      Nitpick: the quote is not from Pratchett, and probably isn't from Twain either.

    8. Re:Ob Pratchett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make that pigshit, methinks

  7. intimidation by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    1. Re:intimidation by SirGarlon · · 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...

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:intimidation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks comes to my mind

      Wikileaks does not come to my mind, but the government response to wikileaks does.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:intimidation by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    4. Re:intimidation by Yakasha · · 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.

    5. Re:intimidation by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      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 did.

  8. Censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In soviet Russia they call it "innovations".

    1. Re:Censorship? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Njet! Pravda!

      (I just noticed that /. doesn't accept Cyrillic letters. Hope that was transliterated correctly).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Who is Laura Weinstein by Little_Professor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be nice if TFS included an explanation of who Laura Weinstein actually is, and why anyone should be interested in the views she writes on her amaterish-looking personal blog.

    1. Re:Who is Laura Weinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's Lauren Weinstein. pinhead. http://www.vortex.com/lauren

    2. Re:Who is Laura Weinstein by Sesostris+III · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's a he, not a she (Lauren, not Laura). It seems he's well enough known to warrant a Wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Weinstein_(technologist).

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    3. Re:Who is Laura Weinstein by colesw · · Score: 2
      To be fair it can be a male or female name. http://wiki.name.com/en/Lauren

      Lauren is a French girl name meaning "crowned with laurel."

    4. Re:Who is Laura Weinstein by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      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. 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.

  10. Similar case in Russia by YurB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    France and Russia are very different states indeed, but it's interesting that Russian Wikipedia had a similar incident recently. The Russian Wikimedia received a request from the government to remove the 'Cannabis smoking' article from Russian Wikipedia (see google-translated version). The request in an ultimate manner states that if the article won't be removed during 24 hours then 'the hosting provider is obliged to limit access to such website' (haha, hosting provider from USA?) and if the hosting provider refuses to do that, then 'the IP address of the website will be listed in a database of addresses to whish ISP's will limit access'. The request PDF is here.

    1. Re:Similar case in Russia by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      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 would be arrested if Russia ever gets the chance. Basically, bullying the entire organization. While they could try what France did, but tell the person to shut up, it wouldn't work for very long. Especially if you and others are watching.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    2. Re:Similar case in Russia by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, people expect this from Russia. They're a corrupt shithole, and everyone knows it. France doing this, though, is a bit farther from the status quo.

  11. Covering up prime para-boarding location by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

    If you look at the pictures, they were clearly trying to cover up the prime para-boarding location.

  12. Immense pressure by saibot834 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me quote from a blog post 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 if he does not immediately comply and delete the article in the intelligence agency's offices? You think that doesn't matter?

    1. Re:Immense pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lucky they did not have a keyboard sniffer or SSL-stripper installed to capture his admin credentials for future use. Oh wait...

    2. Re:Immense pressure by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      ...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 ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  13. Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google has self-censored sites in the Washington, D.C., area and other areas of military and national security interest at the request of the USA government. It's blurred the regions or limited the resolution at which users can scan the areas, such as Fort Knox or the Naval Observatory a.k.a. the Vice-President's Residence. It's also done that for China and India, South Korea, Australia, and others (I think) at those government's requests also. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government the name of that link speaks for itself
    How Google And Bing Maps Control What You Can See
    http://gizmodo.com/5907421/the-dutch-have-the-weirdest-google-maps-censorship
    and of course wikipedia's article on Map censorship by google and microsoft So if Google and MS and others already do all of this at the behest of the government, why are we surprised that the French government is trying to censor Wikipedia?

    1. Re:Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think in the google/bing maps it's not so much censorship as a reasonable compromise.

      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. While there would certainly be a lot of people who would be curious enough to view high res pictures of restricted areas, the inability to do so isn't gonna cause any harm to the map providers product or brandname.

      It isn't hard for a government to present some reasonable arguments as to why they don't like those area's presented, making it a case of "stand on principal and do X amount of harm without any real benefit to us" or "give in to a reasonable request that doesnt have any practical downside".

      In the case of wikipedia being "asked" (more like strongarmed/forced) to remove articles about subjects some groups/governments don't like, the balance is very different.

      On one side, giving these groups -any- control over what should be posted sets a dangerous precedent. If wikipedia only hosted articles that no group has objection to, it would be empty. On the other side, the content that is being complained about is actually part of wikipedias' core product, so taking articles down does actually hurt the overall value of wikipedia (and caving to the presure might hurt their brandname aswell).

    2. Re:Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French government was doing exactly the same: trying to remove/censor information about one of their bases. So should they do the exact same as Google/Bing?

    3. Re:Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "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 degraded versions of another's $20 billion dollar maps, so it's easier to buy from commercial companies.

      Or perhaps that's just the excuse and the real reason is to send government money into well-connected private corporations.

    4. Re:Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Same AC as GP)

      You're probably correct that Google (and others) make a lot of money selling maps to government agencies, however i doubt that that's why they're doing it. The amount of infomation they can get about visitors on the Google Maps website is staggering, and that information, cross-referenced with all the other stuff Google knows about their visitors is worth a lot of money.

      Either way, no matter what other use Google has for their maps, my point about the value of Google Maps (the consumer website) remains unchanged, nobody is going to use Bing for their day to day usage just because google blurs out Area 51, so complying with some agencies' request for harmless censorship makes sense. The situation for wikipedia is different, as for them having a page about Area 51 with some generic information -is- a big deal.

    5. Re:Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the post again.

      A military base being blurred out on Google maps doesn't affect the value of Google Maps for its users (they can still plan their trips), so there isn't much at stake for Google.

      A military base (or any significant location) not being mentioned on Wikipedia DOES degrade the value of Wikipedia.

    6. Re:Google self-censored Wash. DC and other sites by Chance+Phelps · · Score: 1

      I don't know about other countries, but in India's case, many of the installations requested to be blurred were nuclear facilities. Considering that the terrorists behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks used Google Earth to plan their sightseeing http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/IndustryTrends/Google-Earth-used-in-26-11-terror-attacks/SP-Article1-857188.aspx the censoring is justified. I guess the same goes with the other countries.
      Three things wrong with this case, however:
      1. The French facility is not the storage depot for weapons grade uranium or something. Its just a radio station. It was relatively unknown and obscure till this incident happened. Streisand effect, anyone?
      2. Most of the "classified" info came from an interview of the facility's commander. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/wikipedia-editor-allegedly-forced-by-french-intelligence-to-delete-classified-entry/
      3. Despite all this, if the French still wanted to take the article down, they could have simply have gotten a court order to do so. Instead they practically blackmail a volunteer (who had nothing to do with said article) to delete it?

  14. Re:People really Boggle my mind by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    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...

  15. Censorship by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Russia Wikipedia is giving up to the political pressure to remove or edit a page on Cannabis smoking (Russian version of the page).

    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 and other "extremist" materials, 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.

  16. Re:People really Boggle my mind by cffrost · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  17. Re:How is Assange doing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet, only a fraction of the actual rapes occuring are reported. Maybe having the highest incidence of reported rapes isn't such a bad thing.

  18. while we are at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am still looking for the purpose of this facility: 46.716209,1.244688 near Rosnay, France

    1. Re:while we are at it... by Skapare · · Score: 1

      It's purpose is to waste your time so you don't find the real facility.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:while we are at it... by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      Best guess, linked from Wikipedia page about Rosnay.

      The coordinates match, and the shape of the facility is about right.

  19. Flawed Understanding of Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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. It's just like all the people who support the drug war because of crap like "no man is an island" or "harming the community." Show me which individual person was harmed? We have been brainwashed by a thousand years of collectivist bullshit, going back to the Middle Ages and how the church said that if you were a peasant, it was your place in the world to serve everyone else and that was that. We just have the modern version of it -- suckering people into thinking they're supposed to be good "citizens" or "taxpayers" while basically serving someone who's smart enough to game the system and use it for their own ends.

    1. Re:Flawed Understanding of Government by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Flawed Understanding of Government by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      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 military and so on, who just know where to call in for favors, doing this from comfort of their bright offices and comfortable homes.)

      They are the ones that suggest what the orders to be carried out by the intelligence agencies are to contain.

      So, like the snake attacking a stick it's being poked with, you can attack the intelligence agencies - or you can look beyond them and bite the one who wields that stick.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  20. Re:People really Boggle my mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. He's talking about the fact that the seed money for Wikipedia came from Jimmy Wales' work at Bomis, a search engine mostly notable for an expansive adult content section. 2. Not addressed. 3. Not addressed.

  21. Will almost always fail? lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to china, who has over a billion people behind a a literal and figurative wall. Thats a large chunk of the world population.

  22. One thing this tells me ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... is that we can no longer hire French citizens for telecommute work on sensitive jobs.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  23. Re:That's an odd way to abbreviate /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not if it's a Fed.

  24. Re:You are defending the LIFEWORK of a PORN dealer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, this isn't a Tea Party website you dickhead, go away.

  25. Re:People really Boggle my mind by Yakasha · · Score: 1

    "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.

  26. WP:IAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Oxymoron by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    Isn't the use of the words; French + intelligence, an oxymoron?

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!