
French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into deleting a Wikipedia Article - GabrielF00
http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wikipedia-article-5493
======
ErrantX
Wikimedia France just published an article (in English) with more details:
[http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-
wik...](http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wikipedia-
article-5493)

What's distressing about this is that they found a French Wikipedia sysop who
they could identify in real life and "summoned" him to their offices (I
presume from the language it was a summons he couldn't refuse). Then forced
him to delete it there and then, despite no prior connection to the article,
or else be detained.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of them wanting to delete the article, or
whether it had super-secret information, there is only really one response to
what they did; What. The. Fuck.

The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a
website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could
be in trouble. If we feel like it".

~~~
joyeuse6701
It's a 'do the ends justify the means' issue. I'm kind of shocked that the
above the fold comments here no one seems to take into account that France is
engaged in conflict. As a result, if you have an easy to access well written
article, which is exactly what wikis espouse to be that has detailed relevant
as deemed by the french gov't military information, It is their decision to
determine what was once public to be classified information. As much as I am
for supporting rights of individuals and keeping systems in balance, I'm not
so much for the establishment of principle to prove a point and set a
precedent (which is not how the french law system works by the way) so much as
I am for the utilitarian exercising of power when lives are on the line. How
selfish must one be to cling to a few pages on principle when others could die
for it.

"The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a
website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could
be in trouble. If we feel like it".

The other way goes that: 'If I have time sensitive information due to the
changing landscape of warfare, I could get soldiers and civilians killed if I
feel like it'

I sadly would trust the gov't on this decision than an individual.

~~~
ErrantX
Well, I'm not really advancing an opinion as to whether the article is a
problem or not. But looked at it, it is a fairly mundane description of a
radio station right in the heart of France. I struggle to see how any
interpretation of the content could be a direct threat to soldier or civilian
lives... so your rhetoric there doesn't sit comfortably.

I for one think that the following, "ends justifies the means", approach is
not acceptable; "Trust us, we're the government and though it looks innocuous
it is threatening lives right now. So we will take any measures to remove it".
If it is that much of a risk I feel they should be able to convince _someone_
of that fact without divulging the exact problem.

Through all of this the intelligence agency have apparently failed to
communicate this sort of urgency, in private, to either a trained lawyer or
the sysop in question. Indeed, the legal team quite clearly suggest they made
no effort to convince them of such an urgency.

In either case, had they done so, then both would have been able to explain
how to quietly remove the article without this sort of Streisand effect...

All of which still does not excuse the fact that they threatened a private
citizen with terrorism charges.

> I sadly would trust the gov't on this decision than an individual.

I feel that what is often forgotten about govt. is that they are _made up of
individuals_. What you are actually arguing here is that of the several
individuals involved, some of them presumably have more information (i.e.
secret govt. information) than the others.

~~~
joyeuse6701
Well apparently it was a military installation, not just a radio station, and
even if it was in the heart of France that doesn't negate the risk as we know
targets, civilian and military have been hit on a nation's home soil before.
As others have said yeah, the problem of explaining why some of the
information is sensitive is a catch-22. After all, I wouldn't be surprised if
a media outlet decided to publish that information as well 'This is the
sensitive information that required us to remove the content'. The precedent
for that has already been set a la wikileaks. And yes, the gov't is made up of
individuals and this particular gov't happens to be a republic so I agree, my
assumption is that those in the intelligence community within the elected
gov't have more knowledge than either the foundation or the sysop as to
whether this information is benign or not. I'll stick with that assumption, of
course who knows, it could all be a conspiracy =).

~~~
ErrantX
Yes, a military radio station. They are far from uncommon, and certainly have
super secret things happening in them. But their existence and location? Not
really a first class secret, nor one exclusively revealed by Wikipedia. :)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
As you can see, the French Gov't took great pains to disguise this one. Were
it not for some traitorous Wikipedia editor, then casual passers-by may have
never suspected that it was anything other than a dairy farm, (perhaps owned
by an eccentric architect). The terrorists are probably already en-route. Any
minute now, we can expect free peoples of the world to fall under the iron
hands of our enemies. Despite the heroic efforts of the DCRI.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pier...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierre-
sur-Haute)

------
mseebach
A couple of points:

\- The laws on official secrets typically (and uncontroversially IMO) forbid
any unauthorized handling or distribution of classified material. This is not
a US-pandering post-9-11 knee-jerk thing, it goes back _at least_ to WWII, and
probably much longer.

\- Many facts are classified, even though they don't appear significant.
Sometimes they indeed aren't, sometimes the motivation is that a multitude of
such facts collectively suggest something which is significant.

\- Telling an uncleared person what is classified amounts to giving that
person even more classified material that they're not allowed to have.
Obviously, so is saying that there's classified material on the page at all,
but arguably less so.

\- There are some items on the Wikipedia page in question that have "citation
needed", ie. they are not immediately obviously sourced from publicly
accessible material. Chances are that the problematic material is among those
facts.

~~~
cloverich
> \- Telling an uncleared person what is classified amounts to giving that
> person even more classified material that they're not allowed to have.
> Obviously, so is saying that there's classified material on the page at all,
> but arguably less so.

What recourse does a person have then? If the information is publicly posted,
it hardly seems more of a security risk to tell _one_ person what to remove
than have the 'secrets' published for the entire world to see.

Additionally, how can a company such as Wikipedia possibly comply without any
specific information? I.e. - how can they _prevent_ the re-posting of said
information if they have _no idea_ what that information is?

~~~
sampo
> if they have no idea what that information is?

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

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/06/us-china-
tiananmen...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/06/us-china-tiananmen-
advertisement-idUSHKG14616220070606)

------
thotpoizn
Suddenly I cannot think of a single thing QUITE so intoxicatingly interesting
as what the French might be up to with this radio station on Pierre sur Haute!

Surely it must be just sinfully rich with secret sauce, mystery, and
espionage! If only there were thousands of like-minded, curious individuals
with the wherewithal to investigate and help bring these wonderful mysteries
to light...

~~~
vidarh
If only... The article states it's one of four military radio relays along the
North-South axis in France, and that launch orders for nuclear weapons could
pass through it if used. As such it'd probably be one of the primary targets
for anyone who'd like to attack France.

That kind of position probably makes some intelligence officials feel
incredibly important if they can find an excuse to demand even relatively
trivial information about it deleted.

~~~
varjag
It's pointless either way. If the intention was to keep the relay station
secret, there's no use trying to put worms in back in the can once the
information is public. They should relocate it and try better at not spilling
the beans next time.

~~~
jarek
Bit hard to hide a 30 m heavy concrete tower in a country as densely populated
as mainland France, especially from people actively looking for it.

------
thomasjoulin
Seems the article is still here :
[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de...](http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre_sur_Haute)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierre-
sur-Haute)

~~~
kahirsch
It was restored 22 hours after deletion.

5 avril 2013 à 09:16 Inisheer (discuter | contributions) a restauré la page
Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute (30 versions restaurées :
suppression précipitée)

4 avril 2013 à 11:02 Remi Mathis (discuter | contributions) a supprimé la page
Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur Haute (Article qui contient des
informations classifiées, qui contrevient à l'article 413-11 du code pénal)

------
jontro
The french intelligence agency has done many mistakes in the past.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior> is seen as one
of the most counter productive operations done my military agencies to date

~~~
duncan_bayne
Mistake? Are you saying they meant to give the boat a new coat of paint, and
accidentally blew it up instead, killing a bystander in the process?

~~~
jontro
Mistake as in stupid decision.

~~~
duncan_bayne
It wasn't merely stupid, it was evil. They blew up a civilian vessel and
killed a man.

~~~
omonra
I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil - death happened due a miscalculation,
it was not intentional. I think intent matters if we call something evil.

~~~
scarmig
Not enough. If something can predictably end in disaster and horrible things
and someone does it anyway, that person is just as evil as if they had planned
it from the beginning.

If someone throws rocks at oncoming cars, you can't claim innocence because "I
didn't mean to kill a family in a car crash!" If you invade an oil-rich Middle
Eastern country and cause half a million excess deaths, it's just as bad as if
you personally murdered each and every one of them.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
No, we don't say that drunks are evil when they get drunk and then drive their
car over someone. We do still throw them in prison though.

~~~
duncan_bayne
We? You might not, but I certainly do.

~~~
omonra
Let me explain the problem here.

What you are doing is diluting the 'evil brand'. If you call a drunk driver
evil, you have nothing left for the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot. What are they
then - double evil?

~~~
duncan_bayne
It's a spectrum. It's possible to be 'slightly evil' or 'very evil', or - in
the case of Hitler or Pol Pot - 'one of the most evil humans who ever lived'.

------
AndrewDucker
I suspect we're about to see the Streisand effect in action.

~~~
stfu
Apparently the original article is quite of international significance. Can we
get an English version thereof?

~~~
tlrobinson
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierre-
sur-Haute)

------
onemorepassword
Not defending the idiotic actions of the DCRI here, but try looking at it from
a non-American perspective.

American organizations appear to bend over backward to be of service to
American intelligence interests around the world, but tend to act arrogantly
if approached by local authorities over local matters, to the extend of openly
violating the law of the country they're operating in.

For all we know (I'm neither a lawyer nor French), French law requires the
whole publication to be taken down immediately pending further procedure. In
that case it's not surprise that something designated a matter of national
security gets escalated fast.

Wikipedia's blunt refusal has probably pissed the French of more than the
actual content of the article.

~~~
elpachuco
>>American organizations appear to bend over backward to be of service to
American intelligence interests around the world, but tend to act arrogantly
if approached by local authorities over local matters, to the extend of openly
violating the law of the country they're operating in.

Why is it that this makes what the French authorities did OK? Your argument
boils down to "He did it so I should be able to do it too?" What kind of screw
up logic is that. Seriously, W.T.F. We are not talking about kids here.

~~~
vidarh
Where does he say this makes it ok?

It makes it easier to _understand_ why they picked this approach. It is
possible to try to understand someones motivations without supporting them.

------
sp4ke
Fellow living in France here.

For those who want to learn more, the radio station built at this site is part
of a Tropospheric Scatter Communication Network
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter>) named Ace High and which
is used by NATO for military and civilian communications.

You can see it here on a map with other TSCN networks
<http://rammstein.dfmk.hu/~s200/tropo.html#ace>

------
wolf550e
Wikipedia is full classified information, the same way as Jane's and Aviation
Week is full of classified information. Intelligence agencies read this stuff
and try to sift disinformation from genuine leaks. Counter-intelligence
agencies try to act cool and make the enemy suspect the information is
inaccurate.

------
D9u
The article has been updated to reflect the current controversy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pier...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierre-
sur-Haute)

Perhaps this is the sensitive portion? _The most important part of the site is
the underground part, used for transmissions dispatch: at a speed of 2 Mb/s,
communications from the towers are analysed, then redirected to be transmitted
as appropriate._

------
lifeisstillgood
I think this is a really revealing story. Not revealing as in what the French
Government were worried about specifically but as in the changing of the
world.

Firstly the grey world of interesting classified information - it has long
been the domain of Janes' Ships and similar publications - who themselves had
been "trusted" not to go too far, and only occassionally (as in the reveal of
the Stealth bomber as an airfix kit in the late '80s) does it come to mass
public attention.

This resulted in a grey world where secrets were not actually secret - just
private.

Secondly - the loss of privacy. We worry about it for individuals - but it is
happening to governments too, and faster. And they, like us, have not accpeted
the new reality - there is _no_ privacy. Facebook can determine if you are
having an affair, are gay or ill. Combined tracking of sites and queries can
reveal almost anything about ourselves and our medical conditions. Concerned
your employer might know you are rethinking your sexuality? Don't Google "gay
bars". Don't friend anyone. Remove the battery from the iPhone before going
out for the night.

The same goes for governments - if it is not a secret, it is open. And it is
not a secret because you say so - its a secret because no-one knows.

Thirdly this leads to a simple choice - decide on the things you are going to
keep secret. And keep them secret with all the resources of the State. This
clearly does not work in the "I say that is secret and you will now forget it"
approach taken here. It works in the not F$%king telling anyone sense.

Fourthly - Most things will be open - its not feasible to hide a 100ft tower
in the middle of the French countryside. You cannot keep a plane secret. You
cannot keep a prison secret. In fact there is not much in an open
andinquisitive society you _can_ keep secret.

What does this leave? I am not too sure. Secret rendition flights are
monitored by plane-spotting enthusiasts and soon will just be a google-
satellite search away.

I think it will be a better world - less secrecy usually means better
function, but there is a really big threat - the tempting way to keep things
secret is to keep _everything_ secret. Shut down the open, democratic society.
Shut down _inquisitiveness_. Piece by piece.

And we do need to fight that at each and every turn because until governments
get it - this is their default, tempting solution. Fighting terrorists? Lets
torture some. Nuclear strike warning network under threat? Put wikipedia under
French control.

My only suggestion is as follows: define National Security. Something like a
reasonable belief that this things will threaten to destroy 2% of GDP or 1000+
deaths of citizens. Embarrassment to Politicans? Loss of a couple of agents?
Not likely. So when someone quotes National Security, people listen. And if
you quote it for a wikipedia article - woe betide you.

If we do it right we shall slowly find that like online security, you get it
right by actually being secure.

Lesson here - security by secrecy, is no security at all.

~~~
tripzilch
> And we do need to fight that at each and every turn because until
> governments get it

I read an interesting article somewhat related to this:

[http://krypt3ia.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/digital-natives-
dig...](http://krypt3ia.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/digital-natives-digital-
immigrants-exo-nationals-and-the-digital-lord-of-the-flies/)

It uses Anonymous and Wikileaks as examples (which you may or may not disagree
with), but I'm linking it for the general discussion about a sort of digital
generation gap, how the "governing class" of people hasn't caught up with this
digital era quite yet.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
To be fair, its not just the governing class - I don't think anyone really
gets it - the almost total loss of privacy for any digital "native" is
stunning.

This is a little mental exercise for me so bear with me please. Imagine that
all the digital footprints I leave are available through nice open APIs and
easily accessible (its not, it wont be but...)

Then I _know_ that these are collected without any malicious or surveillance
intent:

1\. Physical location - iPhone collects this every 5 mins by default. Thats
almost everything you need right there. I also log into different wifi
hotspots, duck in and out of cells. You can infer an _enourmous_ amount about
me by knowing where I am, and even more by knowing who is there with me. My
sex life, my business deals.

2\. Interests - google searches for itchy skin rashes, my debit and "loyalty"
cards with costa coffee and the supermarkets who know what itch cream I just
bought. Do i have a cat - I buy cat food at Tescos so its a good guess. One of
my two cats just died, which is very sad, but Tesco will know soon as my
purchases halve and stay that low. When I buy puppy food Tesco can sell me pet
insurance.

3\. Networks - who I email (gmail knows all), who I phone (skype, cell
provider), Facebook, linkedin, and most insidiously this cross-website-cookie
business that is coming up (there is a name for it but basically how ad
networks know to show me ads on different sites). If my iphone and one of my
contacts iphones meet up, am I preparing to leave my employer? Would you want
to know who is in the same location as Google's HR people if you were
Zuckerberg?

4\. Real world monitoring - CCTV is too poor to convict bank robbers most of
the time, but Stanford did a study where a good camera could identify faces
and match them to Facebook photos 1 in 3 times. You know the bit in CSI:NY
where they search for the baddie and two dzoen photos flash by and suddenly
they have an address. Thats real. Just not in neon blue lights with good
looking lab assistants.

5\. travelcards and train tickets, Uber taxi cab bookings from my mistresses
flat to my wife's house. (NB I dont actually have a mistress but you get the
point. <\- you see the paranoia is getting to me, just in case my wife reads
HN :-)

I could go on, but really, all this is starting to fall into place - I could
happily do an Research MSc on pulling these sources together...

Anyway - privacy, gone.

And that leaves us with two circles in our Venn diagram of life. Anything that
can be found out by someone somewhere in the world , and if there is anything
left over it is a secret.

Oh and I think my Phd would be on inference of privatives - that is being able
to spot the "black holes" in a persons digital footprints that tell you
something they want to keep secret is going on.

Really, if the Intelligence Services lived up to their names, this is the
stuff they should be eating up. (And those vast NSA computer farms....oh yes,
of course :-)

------
raonyguimaraes
Here is the cached version of the article
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hnvaMcj...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hnvaMcjr4nEJ:fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre_sur_Haute+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=br)

~~~
_quasimodo
And here is a link to the automatic translation:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwebcache.googleusercontent.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3AhnvaMcjr4nEJ%3Afr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStation_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre_sur_Haute%2B%26cd%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dbr)

~~~
walshemj
Seems rather anodyne and doesn't seem to have much (or anything) that could be
considered sensitive the fact that a state has installations like say RAF
chicksands or the Lincolnshire poacher numbers station - both of which have
Wikipedia articles.

Sounds like some french civil servant overracted - though unfortunately the
French do have a nasty poujadist anti American strain that can come out at
times.

------
rdl
I see Ms. Streisand works for French Intelligence now. I hope this gets a
South Park episode, too.

------
slacka
Here's a link to a pastebin of the original article dated July 20, 2012 before
it was deleted. Also includes a link to the video that started the
controversy: <http://pastebin.com/vYGkSzyA>

------
avar
For some reason the submitted story links to the original insertion of that
notice, but it's been updated a lot since then (including a translation into
French and an ensuing discussion):
[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_ad...](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2013/Semaine_14#Wikimedia_Foundation_elaborates_on_recent_demand_by_French_governmental_agency_to_remove_Wikipedia_content%2E)

------
johnchristopher
EDIT: If, like it randomly happens to me, the link takes you in the middle of
a french discussion, you just need to scroll all the way down to get a much
more explicative message from the WMF about the chain of events.

I always have a hard time navigating wp discussion pages. Here is what looks
like a more informative post that the one linked in the title of this HN post.
EDIT: disregard that comment about the title as it might be a navigation
problem on my side.

> First, my apologies for speaking in English in response to this thread, but
> I fear my French would not be adequate to convey what I would like to. If
> someone who is fluent in English and French would be so kind as to translate
> my message so that everyone on this thread can understand it, I would very
> much appreciate that. The Wikimedia Foundation's legal team was contacted by
> Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur in early March regarding the
> French language Wikipedia article entitled "La station hertzienne militaire
> de Pierre sur Haute". The Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur
> requested that we delete the article in its entirety under the claim that it
> contained classified military information. I responded to Direction Centrale
> du Renseignement Intérieur, requesting more detailed information because it
> was not apparent what classified information the article could possibly
> contain from a plain reading of the article. The Direction Centrale du
> Renseignement Intérieur repeatedly failed to provide any further information
> and simply continued to make a general takedown demand, despite my
> explanation that we could not remove the information without more
> information from them. Eventually, I had no choice but to refuse their
> request until they are willing to provide me with more information so that I
> can properly evaluate their claim under legal standards. The community
> remains free, of course, to retain or remove the article as it sees fit. But
> at this point, we do not see a demonstrated reason to remove it on legal
> grounds. --Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel (WMF)

And this is "Remi"'s first post about the whole thing (rough translation and
report):

> Bonjour,

> je vous informe que l'article Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre sur
> Haute vient d'être supprimé par mes soins. Cet article contrevenait à
> l'article 413-11 du code pénal français (compromission du secret de la
> Défense nationale). La police française m'a convoqué en tant
> qu'administrateur, suite au refus de la Wikimedia Foundation de supprimer
> cet article en l'état des éléments fournis.

> La remise en ligne engagera la responsabilité pénale de l'administrateur qui
> aura effectué cette action.

Remi M. (d · c). À Paris, ce 4 avril 2013 à 11:11 (CEST)

In a nutshell:

\- He deleted an article about a military radio station (Pierre sur Haute) ;

\- he states that that article violates article 413-411 of the french penal
code (violation of state defense secret) ;

\- french police asks him to come to their office for a little chat (can't
recall the english legalese for this) following wikimedia foundation refusal
to delete the article. Him=a wikipedia administrator.

\- he finally states that any admin who restores the article would face legal
and penal consequences.

I understand from this first post that it is implied he deleted the article
after the whole wikimedia refusal to delete the article but don't quote me on
that and check for the exact chronology of events yourself when it surfaces.

There is also now a debate about the role of wikipedia admin on articles and
their rights to delete or endorse responsabilities (I haven't read everything
yet, take my rough report and translation with a grain of salt).

~~~
ernesth
The debate is also fueled by the fact that "Rémi" is not simply "a" wikipedia
admin but the president of Wikimedia France:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9mi_Mathis> ; which drives people to ask
for him to resign.

~~~
kerneis
> to ask for him to resign

Actually, they ask for him to resign _as a wikipedia administrator_ as long as
he remains the president of wikimedia France (not the other way round).

------
froggyDoggy
So why not put the article back up? if its already public knowledge? and Just
lock it to teach them a lesson?

------
HunterV
I grew up in France, this isn't unexpected or unusual for the government to
do. But it is a perfect example of why administrative rights (the ability to
delete/censor an article) should reside in a country that has complete freedom
of the press, America.

~~~
mitchi
hahaha :)

------
bmmayer1
What's next? How easy would it be for French officials to decide that
something that's critical of the president or the ruling party may be a threat
to state security and censor the internet accordingly?

------
edouard1234567
One simple suggestion to prevent this from happening in the future : require
each deletion to be approved by another Wikipedia representative in a
DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

------
ballard
Not to reach for the big "let's invent a new policy" stick, however does wikia
have guidelines for those contributing articles where there is obvious life-
and-limb danger to subjects, and by-proxy contributors? Also, don't
contributors have some basic moral duty to not reveal things (0days, troop
movements, etc.) that puts others in immanent danger?

------
dreamdu5t
Ideas are not property. Government secrets == thoughtcrime.

The "intelligence" agency doesn't even understand how Wikipedia works! Scary.

------
mzr
Liberté, égalité, farterai....ahh nevermind

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I can best translate that as waxing?

Could you explain - I must have missed the presumably French idiom

~~~
alxndr
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9)

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Yeah I know that, obviously.

But why Liberty, Equality, Waxing?

~~~
GuiA
I think OP was trying to write "fraternité", and the fact that his misspelling
became an actual word is a mere coincidence.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Yeah, I was just hoping there was some trend in French schools to mess with
the sacred cows and I had not heard of it :-)

------
brianstorms
Here's an article about the site with interesting photos... it's in French but
use Google Translate to get the gist.

[http://j28ro.blogspot.com/2012/09/la-station-hertzienne-
mili...](http://j28ro.blogspot.com/2012/09/la-station-hertzienne-militaire-
de.html#more)

------
kghose
What I would do as a real intelligence agency is start inserting fake
information into the article.

~~~
unimpressive
And then relocate the tower, then have the article deleted on the basis that
the tower doesn't exist.

~~~
jarek
Why? Keep it, all the better to confuse competing intelligence agencies.

~~~
unimpressive
Theres a lot of ways you could do it. Keeping it is one option, removing it is
another, without knowing more about the function of the tower it's hard to
make a determination either way.

(That is, it could be more advantageous to make it seem like a hoax, or it
could be better to leave the "hoax" up with faulty information.)

------
PaulHoule
I dunno, you've gotta watch out for Wikipedia.

I know a guy who had a rare car, of which there were twelve in the world. One
day some people came and tried to steal his car and the cops told him to get
the photo taken down because this would encourage future attempts.

------
epo
What is it with this moronic word "homeland"? This was the DCRI, an internal
security organization. "Homeland" is a fascist-style euphemism which the
Americans have become conditioned into using.

------
Vlaix
Funny how the overreaction mostly comes from foreigners or people involved
with Wikimedia activities.

It may have been handled abruptly (if it were properly handled, there wouldn't
be any significant article about the event anywhere), but the DCRI is
perfectly within its rights and was right to have the info taken down. No,
information isn't free or benign. The right info in the right hands can be
destructive, and I'm glad there are people watching out so that our national
soil remains more or less safe. Knowing about very sensitive compounds _isn't_
a right nor a liberty.

Furthermore, it's not for the Wikimedia Fondation to assess the sensitivity of
information, they merely provide efficient ways of spreading it and should
stick to that.

------
kefeizhou
Simply deleting the article doesn't erase it from the internet. If the content
is really that important people who want it badly enough can still find it in
archives and old database dumps.

~~~
justincormack
Wikipedia deletes only hide the article from non-admins (well there is a real
delete too but the agency did not appear to know that). There is one click
restore if you are an admin.

~~~
sold
They do have "oversight", which deletes from administrator view too.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight>

------
ancarda
And initiate the Streisand effect; I'm now digging around to find the article
to read what sensitive information is hidden from me.

------
polynomial
Was the article later restored by Wikipedia? It doesn't make any sense that it
would have been _permanently_ deleted.

------
benbataille
While I agree the situation underlines a real problem, I don't think it lies
where people think. If you read the text, you will realise that, even if they
are really clumsy, the issue here is not so much the DCRI than French law
itself.

Let's look closely at what is happening : 1 - The DCRI aks the Wikimedia
Fundation to delete an article from Wikipedia because it's infringing article
413-11 of the French penal code. 2 - The Wikimedia Fundation refuses arguing
the order should state which piece of information in the article is
classified. 3 - As the Wikimedia Fundation is an american organisation, the
DCRI turns itself towards its French arm, the French Wikimedia and its
representative. 4 - Under pressure, the president complies and removes the
article pointing that people putting it back will be breaking the law.

Well, actually, he is probably right. While I understand why the Wikimedia
Fundation took a stand and refused to remove the article, as silly as it
seems, the fact remains : In France, putting classified information online is
illegal even you don't know they are classified.

Let's look at the article 413-11 :
[http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessioni...](http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=FB03D025759E0DF0811DDCFEC51257B5.tpdjo17v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000020933031&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&dateTexte=20130406&categorieLien=id)

First, this article is aimed at everyone not mentioned in article 413-10.
Article 413-10 lists the sanction for people which are legitimately depositary
of a state secret. Thus, article 413-11 concerned anyone knowing a state
secret without being mandated.

Now, there is three points in the article. The first one says that the mere
fact of knowing classified information without being mandated is illegal (yes,
even by accident). The second one that destroying, stealing or copying such
information is illegal (yes, it's unnecessary considering that to do that you
have already committed 1). The third (unnecessary too) states that sharing
this information with the public is illegal too.

So yes, if the Wikipedia article contains classified information, Wikimedia
France already broke the law and its legal representative is liable and yes
it's laughable.

But now, the best part. Do you know why there is so unnecessary part in this
law ? Because it was changed in 2009 ! Previously, article 1 only criminalised
illegally acquiring classified information, not knowledge of it. But, you
nailed it, transforming unknowing citizen into criminals was obviously a
necessity to protect us against terrorists and the amendment was passed in a
state of general indifference despite some warning from the press (for once).

So, if you want to blame someone, blame the French parliament and the French
people. It's entirely our own fault (you can also do some lobbying if you
happen to be French, the new government might hear you but I doubt it).

~~~
nuns
It's worth pointing out that "if the Wikipedia article contains classified
information, Wikimedia France already broke the law" seems to be a
misunderstanding. From the article on the Wikimédia France blog currently
linked by the OP (I understand it pointed to a discussion on Wikipedia
earlier, but has been edited): "Wikimédia France is a charity which supports
the Wikimedia projects in France. Wikimedia does not host nor edit Wikipedia:
if some members are also Wikipedia contributors, the charity never intervenes
in Wikipedia. It is independent from Wikimedia Foundation." From Wikipedia:
"Wikimédia France brings together users and participants in Wikimedia
projects. It is recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation as a chapter; however
it is a legally and financially independent entity, obeying different rules
and a separate leadership. It is led by a Board of Trustees elected by the
association members. Wikimédia France doesn't host any Wikimedia Foundation
project and doesn't have any right to edit them."
[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikim%C3%A9dia_France>]

~~~
benbataille
Thank you, I missed that (I'm an idiot, it explains why the DCRI went after
Wikimedia and not Wikimedia France at first). Wikimedia seems to think the law
is with them. I'm not entirely sure but contrary to their layers, I'm not a
specialist. What I wanted to convey is how silly the law is and how it makes
Wikipedia French administrators easy targets .

------
stefantalpalaru
I find the fact that an intelligence agency does not understand Wikipedia
scarier than the actual bullying. These are people allowed to circumvent the
law in order to protect the country. People who do counter-espionage and
counter-terrorism it what amounts to a police state. If they can't figure out
this, how are they dealing with the serious stuff?

~~~
usamec
I disagree. They just found the most simple way how to delete that article.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
It did not work. The article was quickly reinstated by another user and the
whole thing backfired.

~~~
ibejoeb
Haven't read through it all yet, but presumably he's just been "recruited" to
make it work. They've probably go some dirt on him. That's probably not even
the material they care about, at least in the long term.

------
wilfra
Somebody, somewhere in France should go on strike.

