French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into deleting a Wikipedia Article

Wikimedia France just published an article (in English) with more details: <a href="http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wikipedia-article-5493" rel="nofollow">http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wik...</a><p>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.<p>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.<p>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".

A couple of points:<p>- 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 <i>at least</i> to WWII, and probably much longer.<p>- 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.<p>- 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.<p>- 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.

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!<p>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...

Seems the article is still here : <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre_sur_Haute" rel="nofollow">http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de...</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierre-sur-Haute" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierr...</a>

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

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

Not defending the idiotic actions of the DCRI here, but try looking at it from a non-American perspective.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Wikipedia's blunt refusal has probably pissed the French of more than the actual content of the article.

Fellow living in France here.<p>For those who want to learn more, the radio station built at this site is part of a Tropospheric Scatter Communication Network (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter</a>) named Ace High and which is used by NATO for military and civilian communications.<p>You can see it here on a map with other TSCN networks <a href="http://rammstein.dfmk.hu/~s200/tropo.html#ace" rel="nofollow">http://rammstein.dfmk.hu/~s200/tropo.html#ace</a>

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.

The article has been updated to reflect the current controversy. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pierre-sur-Haute" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_radio_station_of_Pier...</a><p>Perhaps this is the sensitive portion? <i>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.</i>

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.<p>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.<p>This resulted in a grey world where secrets were not actually secret - just private.<p>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 <i>no</i> 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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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 <i>can</i> keep secret.<p>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.<p>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 <i>everything</i> secret. Shut down the open, democratic society. Shut down <i>inquisitiveness</i>. Piece by piece.<p>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.<p>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.<p>If we do it right we shall slowly find that like online security, you get it right by actually being secure.<p>Lesson here - security by secrecy, is no security at all.

Here is the cached version of the article <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hnvaMcjr4nEJ:fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre_sur_Haute+&#38;cd=2&#38;hl=en&#38;ct=clnk&#38;gl=br" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hnvaMcj...</a>

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

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: <a href="http://pastebin.com/vYGkSzyA" rel="nofollow">http://pastebin.com/vYGkSzyA</a>

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): <a href="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" rel="nofollow">https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_ad...</a>

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.<p>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.<p>&#62; 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)<p>And this is "Remi"'s first post about the whole thing (rough translation and report):<p>&#62; Bonjour,<p>&#62; 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.<p>&#62; La remise en ligne engagera la responsabilité pénale de l'administrateur qui aura effectué cette action.<p>Remi M. (d · c). À Paris, ce 4 avril 2013 à 11:11 (CEST)<p>In a nutshell:<p>- He deleted an article about a military radio station (Pierre sur Haute) ;<p>- he states that that article violates article 413-411 of the french penal code (violation of state defense secret) ;<p>- 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.<p>- he finally states that any admin who restores the article would face legal and penal consequences.<p>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.<p>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).

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

Ideas are not property. Government secrets == thoughtcrime.<p>The "intelligence" agency doesn't even understand how Wikipedia works! Scary.

Liberté, égalité, farterai....ahh nevermind

Here's an article about the site with interesting photos... it's in French but use Google Translate to get the gist.<p><a href="http://j28ro.blogspot.com/2012/09/la-station-hertzienne-militaire-de.html#more" rel="nofollow">http://j28ro.blogspot.com/2012/09/la-station-hertzienne-mili...</a>

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

I dunno, you've gotta watch out for Wikipedia.<p>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.

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.

Funny how the overreaction mostly comes from foreigners or people involved with Wikimedia activities.<p>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.<p>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.

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.

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

Was the article later restored by Wikipedia? It doesn't make any sense that it would have been <i>permanently</i> deleted.

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Let's look at the article 413-11 : <a href="http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=FB03D025759E0DF0811DDCFEC51257B5.tpdjo17v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000020933031&#38;cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&#38;dateTexte=20130406&#38;categorieLien=id" rel="nofollow">http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessioni...</a><p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).<p>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).

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?

Somebody, somewhere in France should go on strike.