Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

French Intelligence Agency Forces Removal of Wikipedia Entry

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the do-not-look-there dept.

Censorship 179

saibot834 writes "The French domestic intelligence agency DCRI has forced a Wikipedia administrator to delete an article about a local military base. The administrator, who is also the president of Wikimédia France, has been threatened by the agency with immediate reprisals after his initial refusal to comply. Following a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard, the article (which is said to violate a law on the secrecy of the national defense) has been reinstated by a foreign user. Prior to pressuring the admin, DCRI contacted the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which refused to remove the article. WMF claimed the article only contained publicly available information, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. While the consequences for Wikimedia's community remain unclear, one thing is certain: The military base article – now available in English – will get more public awareness than ever before."

cancel ×

179 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great test case (4, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378055)

This is a terrific test case on secrecy laws. No one violated laws, no one is using secret information. All the proper people were notified and there was a clear cut request / order and a clear cut refusal to comply. At the same time this is military information. This is just about the perfect test case.

Whut? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378133)

No one violated laws, no one is using secret information.

So how is this a "terrific test case on secrecy laws"? If this goes any further than it has, this is a test case for the French military's ability to overstep its authority. Nothing more.

I expect this "case" to go no further.

Re:Whut? (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378217)

I'm gathering the French govt has the ability to prevent the republication of already public information. Those sorts of laws are common in Europe and Canada.

Re:Whut? (3, Interesting)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378909)

There's a jurisdictional question: can the French government punish a French citizen for simply being part of the same organization as a non-Frenchman who breaks French law?

Re:Whut? (-1, Offtopic)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379057)

Yes, and the same goes for U.S. citizens. In fact we would happily give you over to the Chinese government for a minor offense in order to garner a political favor if you were a nobody and wouldn't make the news. Meaning the Chinese payed for your quiet secret extradition in the middle of the night.

Now you thought the world was just, fair and, egalitarian? Psssh prole...

Re:Whut? (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379091)

If it did, wouldn't that have given them better leverage over twitter?

Recall the french government sued twitter after they refused to hand over the names/IP addresses of some people who committed the horrible crime against humanity of trolling somebody else.

Instead of complying, twitter basically told them to GFY. I'd imagine that if there were any french people working for twitter, they would have been snagged by that.

Re:Whut? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379445)

Those are smaller more petty bureaucrats or police with less international leverage then higher level military ranking officials with special official positions only given out to single people and probably attachment to the French version of 3 letter agencies though. So in this case the guy is probably out of luck and must comply or else.

Thats were the "just" part comes in.

LICRA v. Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43379551)

Although its a civil vs a criminal case, I would think that it's applicable here. France has jurisdiction over the French citizen, therefore I'm not sure why there's no jurisdiction to punish him. If the government truly wants to be an asshole, they would just charge him with some type of conspiracy/collusion/aiding&abetting.

Re:Great test case (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378719)

It raises interesting questions of jurisdiction - Wikipedia (inc. fr.wiki afaik) is a US website hosted in the US. On what basis could French authorities do anything about it, beyond blocking it in France? It also raises interesting questions that we'll be potentially facing in the UK, if the Leveson plans go through, regarding the liability of individual contributors, given that the authorities threatened "reprisals" against an administrator who (presumably) had no previous involvement with the article. Scary, on both counts.

Re:Great test case (4, Informative)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379667)

And in a wonderful example of self-reference, this Slashdot article is referenced in the Wikipedia article.

Le effect Streissand. (5, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378057)

I wonder what that French agency which likes to create French words instead of using ones derived from other languages will coin to name the Streissand effect.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (0)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378101)

1- Maybe they would spell Streisand correctly?

2- Let's imagine (crazy idea, I know) that their goal is the application of local law... they certainly know that this will create unwanted attention in the short run, but maybe that's a sacrifice they're willing to make to have wikimedia comply with local law?

Re:Le effect Streissand. (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378117)

If they can't spell "London" correctly, why would they bother with "Streisand"?

Re:Le effect Streissand. (1)

snowjest (638941) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379109)

Nobody can spell Lundun properly, not even us Brits!

Re:Le effect Streissand. (1)

jc42 (318812) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379161)

Nobody can spell Lundun properly, not even us Brits!

Except for those with a bit of historical knowledge, who know that the correct spelling is "Londinium [wikipedia.org] ". ;-)

Re:Le effect Streissand. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43379219)

Except for those with a bit of historical knowledge, who know that the correct spelling is "Londinium [wikipedia.org] ". ;-)

Since when did the Romans use the letter 'u'? Londinivm.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (2)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379471)

Thanks I learned a great deal on slashdot today. I will always hold this knowledge in a special place in my heart.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (-1, Troll)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378165)

1- Maybe they would spell Streisand correctly?

My god, I mispeld somthing. Will the horors never end?

Let's imagin (crazy idea, I know) that there gaol is the aplecation of local law... they certinly know that this will creeate unwanted atenshion in the short run, but mebbe that's a sacrafice there willing to make to hav wikimedia complie with local law?

You mean they want to make that wikipedia *contributer* obay the local law. Surly they kno that Wikeemedia is not a French orginisation and is not bound by French law, even if the website is acessable from there. There optins were to (a) quietly leave the sight up or (b) make a fuss and haev it up anyway.

Protip: thw web is not bound by local French law.

Mods encourage it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378221)

My god, I mispeld somthing. Will the horors never end?

Many mods encourage pedantry and ad hominem attacks by modding up such comments. Add in people's desire for approval and you get comments like the GP.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378295)

My god, I mispeld somthing. Will the horors never end?

The horrors of your own miserable worthless existence will continue until
you grow up and quit acting like a smart-assed immature punk and learn
to accept valid criticism like an adult does.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378469)

by suing.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (5, Funny)

JakeBurn (2731457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378763)

Ah, valid criticisms. Those I like. Such as pointing out that only the worst type of loser chooses to check the box 'Post Anonymously'. If you have an opinion, speak it. Being afraid of judgment from people you have never or will never meet shows an extreme lack of self esteem. Type out your opinions like an ADULT and be done with it.

"smart-assed immature punks' are the people who honestly think anyone gives a damn about spelling mistakes on the internet. Should I berate you endlessly for not putting a comma between miserable and worthless as you should have? It would be a waste of both our times and we both know it. Adult only references a person's age, not their ability to not act like a know-it-all piece of shit who feels that everyone should be grateful at being corrected on a matter they care nothing about. Save us the shame of knowing about your neurotic tendencies and keep them to yourself.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43379647)

Such as pointing out that only the worst type of loser chooses to check the box 'Post Anonymously'. If you have an opinion, speak it. Being afraid of judgment from people you have never or will never meet shows an extreme lack of self esteem. Type out your opinions like an ADULT and be done with it.

People that think this consistently agree with slashdot groupthink. Also, they probably don't have jobs.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43379697)

The Post Anonymously option exists as an admission that the karma system on slashdot sucks pretty bad.

People don't use it correctly because they don't have to. And so it's used to bury quality discussion, instead of promoting it. That has the nasty side effect of reinforcing a twisted worldview, where users think everyone else in the world thinks the way slashdot sounds. Which is absolute bullshit.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (1)

JoeRandomHacker (983775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378333)

Sorry, accidentally modded your post down, when intended to mod it +1 Funny. This post should undo that.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (2)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378539)

Brilliant - I'm going to have to have a look for a plugin that misspells words but still leaves the content readable. I'd try writing one, but am too busy smashing Kerbals into the Mun.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378645)

You can always tell the Linux users vs. iApple/Windoz users
(clue - iApple/Windoz products don't ship with a working spell checker).

Jut sayin'

Re:Le effect Streissand. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378171)

There are a million different local laws. And if the local law is not ethical, why should Wikipedia care? If France cares enough about this they can go down the road of Chinese censorship. Otherwise, they need to welcome themselves to the 21st century.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (4, Informative)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378189)

Let's imagine (crazy idea, I know) that their goal is the application of local law... they certainly know that this will create unwanted attention in the short run, but maybe that's a sacrifice they're willing to make to have wikimedia comply with local law?

Welcome to the Internet, France. Wiki ain't local. Suck it.

That said - This article has pretty much nothing of interest in it except maybe a tiny bit of cold war trivia only of interest to the most die-hard "must know everything" historians. That, therefore, makes me suspect this base's official purpose as a cover for something much, much more interesting. Thanks, France, for drawing attention to this!

Re:Le effect Streissand. (5, Insightful)

BarfooTheSecond (409743) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379083)

That said - This article has pretty much nothing of interest...

In this case you're probably right, however one shouldn't forget that intelligence job is to gather tiny bits of information that might look of no interest to average people to reconstruct schemes in contexts that are of interest to them (and other intelligence services). It's a profession.

It is the same problematic as with Facebook lambda users for example who say "Due, I don't publish very private information about myself there, so what, and who cares...", when you warn them about their privacy. They simply ignore there are specialists out there, how powerful data mining systems are and how they are capable of spotting, linking and gathering tiny elements of information where themselves just see nothing.

I just want to say that intelligence agencies know what is sensible or of interest to them and what is not. We, outsiders, don't.

But sure they got a Streisand effect here...

Re:Le effect Streissand. (3, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378499)

Oh, that's a common mistake. This obviously isn't the Streisand effect, but the closely related Streissand effect.

The Streisand effect is when you have something that you really do want to keep private, but in your zealous quest to do so it becomes more public much to your chagrin.

The Streissand effect is when you have something you don't really care if it stays private and make a zealous quest to keep it quiet, making it look like a Streisand effect, when the intention was to try to set a precedent that could be used in he future to encourage people to not try to make the other really private stuff, the stuff you *really* want to keep private, public for fear of your reaction.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378429)

It's funny how it's always purported as if using your own language was a bad thing.
Americans do it all the time, but find it strange if other countries do it? Wat?

I'm not even remotely French, and I find the risk of a English monoculture really disturbing.The word for the exact same thing has very different associations in different languages.

I, for one, want to keep as many beautiful languages and have as many beautiful words in them as possible!

Also, Streisand stays Streisand, since it's a name.

Man, some morons being nationalists DOESN'T mean it's OK for you morons to be anti-nationalists. Both are extremist thought-terminating irrational idiot mindsets. BOTH.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (3, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378435)

Unlike the usual cases, the Streisand effect does not really fit here.
Sure it will happen.
But the french intelligence agency does not care about 'public attention'. They care about what information other intelligence agencies can obtain about their bases.
And if those are interested in said base at all, they will find the info wikipedia has on it, with, or without Miss Streisand's help.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (4, Interesting)

MDMurphy (208495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379151)

Effet Pierre-sur-Haute

Might as well make it local.

Re:Le effect Streissand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43379519)

I wonder what that French agency which likes to create French words instead of using ones derived from other languages will coin to name the Streissand effect.

In France we call that "l'effet Streissand", what kind of translation could you give to Streissand ? And "effect" is originaly a french word we gave to the english ...

But you're right, translating email(emel) or cd-rom (cederom) was stupid and each year the "French Academy" responsible for defining french words, is once again laughed at :D

Military intelligence (2)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378061)

That's military intelligence for you. Nice radio station you have there, France.

Re:Military intelligence (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378147)

"Military intelligence", is that something analogical to "celibate Irish friar" or "honest politician"?

Re:Military intelligence (2)

morcego (260031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378207)

"Military intelligence", is that something analogical to "celibate Irish friar" or "honest politician"?

No. It is statistically possible to find examples of said friar and politician.

"Military intelligence" is more in line with "Santa Claus" and "Easter Bunny".

Re:Military intelligence (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378251)

"Military intelligence", is that something analogical to "celibate Irish friar" or "honest politician"?

No. It is statistically possible to find examples of said friar and politician.

I think they called the last one "Honest Abe", I'm pretty sure the species is extinct.

Re:Military intelligence (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379581)

"Military intelligence" is more in line with "Santa Claus"

The Easter Bunny I'll give you. But it was statistically possible to find Nicholas of Myra, and it is still statistically possible to find a seasonal courier, recognizable from its sales associates in red coats in shopping malls, that specializes in delivering toys and hobby products on December 25.

Re:Military intelligence (3, Informative)

warGod3 (198094) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378395)

What is so secretive and important about a radio tower and roughly 20 personnel? Especially when they have three more of those.

Hell, there's more informative articles on Gitmo, Diego Garcia, and Area 51... and those are still up.

I think someone in the French military got their panties in a wad about nothing...

Re:Military intelligence (5, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378419)

I think someone in the French military got their panties in a wad about nothing...

- careful, it's France. You don't insult the panties that the French military is brandishing without suffering a severe ... retreat.

Re:Military intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378627)

when are u going to retreat back to communist russia u goose steppin worm ?

Re:Military intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378869)

Beware, they just might opt for a backstabbing [wikipedia.org] instead.

Re:Military intelligence (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379853)

Awesome link. Its a shame. But this seems to be the modus operandi of people with power like this.

Re:Military intelligence (1)

killkillkill (884238) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379569)

What I want to know is what they even need the tower for? What could their military be saying that couldn't just be communicated by waiving a white flag?

compromised, fullstop. (4, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378079)

You don't need to devour spy novels or watch 007 all night long to understand one simple aspect of the story (as reported in the summary, at least): once news about X leak out, X is to be considered COMPROMISED.

In this case it is blatant. Something that shouldn't have been there is available? assume the bad guys got it, if it is important, STFU if it's not important.

So, this move from the French secret service is muscle flexing, or counterintelligence (making people concentrate on a decoy), or a way to make openness and free exchange of information look contrary to national interests.

It is not a way to increase national security.

Re:compromised, fullstop. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378135)

I think the important part of the wiki article (English version) is that it mentions nuclear attack orders may be relayed through the station and that there are four others, with additional wiki links to those stations.

Re:compromised, fullstop. (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378351)

>I think the important part of the wiki article (English version) is that it mentions nuclear attack orders may be relayed through the station and that there are four others, with additional wiki links to those stations.

oh ok then, they simply want to draw the hackers' attention to the base so that a nuclear first strike can be blamed on a hacking attempt :)

Re:compromised, fullstop. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378529)

Yes, however the fact being that this information was apparently in a TV show broadcast on French regional TV and now available from the station's web site probably makes any campaign against Wikipedia redistributing it somewhat moot.

(captcha: retracts, i.e. what Wikipedia doesn't.)

Re:compromised, fullstop. (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378449)

Or maybe they expect that as long as the article exists, someone may be dumb enough to edit in something really important.
Must not have happened yet.

And.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378111)

China says thank you, but we already knew about this.

Too easy... (4, Funny)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378119)

You can certainly understand the collective French nervousness regarding military secrets. Look what happened when that Maginot thing got out.

Re:Too easy... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378261)

Reminds me of the old joke..

Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
A: Unknown, it has never been tried.

Re:Too easy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378311)

In fact it has ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne

Re:Too easy... (2)

Zcar (756484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378425)

And the attempt succeeded. Ok, there were some British soldiers there, too. But the vast majority were French army.

Not really (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378535)

That was a British army (70000 men) assisted by six French armies (150000 men) and it was well outside of Paris.

Re:Not really (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43379831)

No, that was six British divisions and 39 French divisions. The French had closer to 900,000 men. The British Forces performed admirably, but were not exactly giving it their all; the BEF was most of the UK's officer corps and Kitchener at least was planning for the war to last a lot longer than the French or Germans had any idea. His plan was for the BEF to serve as the nucleus for a much larger (~1 million) army. Obvs can't do that if they're dead. And "well outside Paris" must mean something different to you than the rest of us. The German armies came to within 30-40 miles of Paris, famously within reach of the Parisian taxicabs, and it should be noted that the city of Paris is not itself a defensive structure. What else would count as "defending Paris"? Climbing up on the Arc de Triomphe and taking up a sniper position?

You're probably unaware, but the Germans had just marched through Belgium to get to France. Due to some imagined terror of the franc-tireur, they had just become famous for massacring and razing whole villages whenever they thought that were being shot at by Belgians. They would have been just as happy to do the same to Paris. Anything that didn't involve armies meeting in an open field was probably not so hot an idea.

Generally, unless you like getting your nation's seat of government burned to the ground, the way to defend your capital city does not involve fighting a pitched battle anywhere near the place. The premise of the original joke is retarded.

Anti-French sentiment is equally retarded, considering that the Revolutionary War was nothing more than a proxy war against the British. France had the largest economy and military in the world at the time, and spent over a billion livres fighting in the Americas. They directly funded the revolution, provided most of the rifles, and fielded a highly effective army, as well as providing military advisers. They also fought a highly successful naval campaign -- the United States had no ships of the line, which is more or less equivalent to having no navy at all. The Battle of Chesapeake decided the Battle of Yorktown, which I am sure that your history books have taught you decided the entire war. Guess how many Americans took part in Chesapeake. It is completely accurate to say that the United States would not exist today if not for France. Generally a good ROI for them considering WWI and WWII, but not at the time. The depth of ignorance required to harbor hostility against the French is frankly astounding, and it is deeply to the US's shame that this is so prevalent.

Re:Too easy... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378563)

Hear about the guy who had French Asthma?

He could only catch his breath in snatches..

Bienevenue au l'effect de Streisand, monsieur! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378151)

:)

French Intelligence? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378169)

French Intelligence? Are you mad?

Not even a number station (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378223)

But whyyy ? Not even a number station related revelations. Just a stupid beacon transmitting nuclear instructions... so mainstream

may not meet general notability guidelines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378229)

well, it's notable now.. good job, france! just what you did *not* want.

The French article had ZERO hits ... until now (4, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378265)

Let me show you something: page view statistics from the last 90 days [stats.grok.se] .

The article had ZERO hits for months ... until yesterday.

Re:The French article had ZERO hits ... until now (4, Funny)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378463)

Which means, no one else knew about it!
Finally Slashdot is delivering real news!

Re:The French article had ZERO hits ... until now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378575)

Obviously fake. How would he have edited it, without generating hits? Hm?

Re:The French article had ZERO hits ... until now (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378873)

That link goes to the recreated article. The original article is still available as well to the admins. These stats are most likely just for the new page not the original.

From the discussion (translated):
I recreated the article, if the government seeks a victim you would be nice to direct them to me. And tell them that I fuck. - GaAs ( d ) April 4, 2013 at 22:39 (CEST)

Re:The French article had ZERO hits ... until now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378967)

Could that be because the article was deleted and then reinstated? Maybe the hit counter lost track of the old article.

A FreeNet or i2p version of Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378271)

Would solve the problem.

Of course it would be harder to fund such a project, as once you accept funds there is your traceable line back to the guy running it to pressure or arrest. Archive.org should be moved too, both without all the 'goody two shoes' rules on content.

Submitter here (5, Insightful)

saibot834 (1061528) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378325)

In this case the problem was not that Wikipedia was centralized. The Wikimedia Foundation in the US did not comply with the agency's demands.

The problem was that the administrator's real name was publicly known (he's a public figure [wikipedia.org] and it's his username) so that they were able to find someone under French jurisdiction. Most admins and non-admins use pseudonyms and are thus immune to real-life pressure.

All in all, I'd say the system worked. The admin had to give in to the immense pressure, but he was sensible enough to publicly announce what he did, thus enabling foreign users to reinstate the article. Now, the really threatening cases are those with gag orders, such as given by US intelligence agencies.

Re:Submitter here (2)

Ottawakismet (2798639) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378651)

The article is up in French and English, but still being heavily monitored and censored

No, it won't (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378289)

one thing is certain: The military base article â" now available in English â" will get more public awareness than ever before.

Not really. The general public will never really hear of it, and within a few days the netizens currently aware of it will have moved on to a new outrage of the day. The Streisand "Effect' was a one-time confluence of celebrity and celebrity journalism - now long forgotten except for obsessive fanboys who cite it endlessly.

Re:No, it won't (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378505)

You misunderstand. Whoever in the French military gave the take-down order pretty much confirmed that the information is genuine, and important. Foreign intelligence agencies don't often get a free kick like that.

Weird thing is, intelligence agency have tried and true methods for casting subtle doubt on compromised information. And not one of those methods involves bursting into a room, pointing at the thing and yelling "Hey! Everyone! I'm from the French military and this thing, this thing right here, which I'm pointing at, this thing is very important to us!" [Except in all-caps. And purple blink font.]

Re:No, it won't (1)

jeremyp (130771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378941)

And not one of those methods involves bursting into a room, pointing at the thing and yelling "Hey! Everyone! I'm from the French military and this thing, this thing right here, which I'm pointing at, this thing is very important to us!" [Except in all-caps. And purple blink font.]

Maybe that's what they want you to think...

Re:No, it won't (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379189)

True. But utterly irrelevant to my point.

You mean this place ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378291)

http://goo.gl/maps/i5v1a

Could have been worse (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378335)

Could have been worse like another time in New Zealand - at least they didn't sink Wikipedia's boat and kill their photographer.

Re:Could have been worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378709)

Could have been worse like another time in New Zealand - at least they didn't sink Wikipedia's boat and kill their photographer.

Wikipedia's done a pretty good job of sinking their own damn boat...

Stupid - Lets just post the codes to the bomb (0)

Tim12s (209786) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378367)

This is really stupid. There has to be some fair policy of information to protect both security and public knowledge. Just because some drunken officer releases some information doesn't mean that it should be public.

One day, someone will regret the release of certain types of information. It might be unfathomable to understand that now.

Re:Stupid - Lets just post the codes to the bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378907)

Once the drunken officer has released the information, pulling it down doesn't erase it from the minds of the enemy. From the POV of national security, it's pointless to try to censor information that's been publicly released.

Re:Stupid - Lets just post the codes to the bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378913)

I believe 0000 is very commonly used as a bomb code. Obviously on modern higher-security bombs, they'd use an eight digit code, so probably 0000 0000. Or, wait, are you saying that posting the codes to the bomb might be a bad idea?

Re:Stupid - Lets just post the codes to the bomb (1, Troll)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378965)

I believe 0000 is very commonly used

Nope. Its the President's birthday. All you have to do is to get hold of a copy of his birth cert ....... Oh, crap!

Re:Stupid - Lets just post the codes to the bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378983)

Except those intel were public.
Pretty much all of the article is based on a video made by a local tv station years ago.
http://www.tl7.fr/ami-la-base-militaire-de-chalmazel-1981.html

See if he puts the joint in joint photo group .jpg (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378421)

> "The French domestic intelligence agency DCRI"

I wonder if there is any publicly-verifiable information about the state of this agency's leader's wife's underpants thru a window.

ALL YOUR BASE (4, Funny)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378437)

ARE BELONG TO US!

Re:ALL YOUR BASE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43379055)

ARE BELONG TO THE US!

There, fixed that for ya.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378495)

Russian Wikipedia received a letter demanding to remove "Cannabis smoking" article or face block on ISPs level [google.com] , based on the law from November 2012 that instituted register of banned sites (for now, containing info about suicide, drugs and child porn) with expedite inclusion.

It's still up, though, and ban only names ru.wikipedia.org URL, not any other language WP section. Still makes people wonder, would they add Wikipedia IPs to the blacklist if they fail to comply?

Intelligence 101 training fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378527)

You have to wonder about the intelligence of the members of a French Intelligence Service that don't understand the Streisand Effect. I guess they never covered the first rule (the first rule about secret bases is: don't talk about secret bases).

Re:Intelligence 101 training fail (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378931)

Yeah. Take a lesson from the British [wordpress.com] on how to handle such matters.

OMG (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378633)

How can an intelligence agency be so stupid?

Re:OMG (1)

cpghost (719344) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379395)

Intelligence agencies are seeking intelligence for some reason, you know...

Who knew George W. Bush was French? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378683)

Geez, I thought Teh EEEVIIL BOOSH!!! was the root of all problems in the world, and those wonderfully enlightned Europeans were SOOO much better than everone here in the US.

Guess I should have been living on a planet with a blue sky...

Re:Who knew George W. Bush was French? (0)

careysub (976506) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379231)

You are really this desperate to defend G. W. Bush's legacy as President? You realize that you are in effect attempting to argue that a screw-up by the French military proves that Bush is not the most incompetent person in the world. Quite apart of the logical fallacy involved here, this is just an amazingly low bar to set for Bush to clear. From a purely PR (aka "spin") aspect you should rethink your strategy here.

in countries under rule of law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43378765)

...the law is enforced. It's fairly fucking simple.

If there are secrecy laws then it would be far worse for them to be enforced only when it is politically/militariliy important to do so, instead of doing so in every case. Selective application of bad laws is the best way of abusing the people.

You may rail against the secrecy laws, but that's another matter entirely.

Not helpful (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378903)

The summary has a link [wikipedia.org] to a supposedly restored page. But it appears to be encoded or written in some dead [youtube.com] language.

French Intelligence Agency? (-1, Flamebait)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379263)

How do I say "contradiction of terms" in French?

Google translation - French Wiki Admin Noticeboard (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379363)

Bruce Schneier (1)

MSG (12810) | about a year and a half ago | (#43379795)

A couple of days ago, Bruce Schneier posted a blog entry that seems relevant. There's something in the military mindset about secrecy that I don't understand, and perhaps none of us do.
How people talked about the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan project. [schneier.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>