----- Original Message -----
From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2004 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Trading with the Enemy
> Everyone who's received a legal threat from Sc*nt*l*gy knows that
> Hollandis the only place for hosting. (Modulo EUCD.)
Huh?
I think Reporters Without Borders is entitled to their P.O.V. about
press freedom, but they are very likely wrong about the U.S.
No one is imprisoned in the U.S. for uncovering government corruption or
for opposing administration policy.
Journalists who claim to have information on crimes but who claim they
have some kind of "Journalists Right" to "protect sources" are sometimes
jailed, but this is because the journalists are /obstructing/ justice,
not because they are /victims/ of injustice.
Anyway, the Wikipedia won't be endorsing or condemning the RWB rankings,
and the articl on [[freedom of the press]] should make it clear to
readers that the US is widely regarded as tops in press freedom, having
practically pioneered the concept.
Ed Poor
----- Original Message -----
From: Gareth Owen <wiki(a)gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2004 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Trading with the Enemy
> So (i) It applies to employees of the government
> (ii) Its about prevent the dissemination of classified
> information
Oh, something I forgot. Gareth is, I think, not entirely correct.
If I remember correctly, such provisions also apply to contractors and such. It's not explicitly said, but that's basically how the courts (on both sides of the Atlantic) have generally interpreted such laws.
The rule of thumb is: It applies if you do "government work", whether you're employed directly by them or not. The operative factor is: Does your work possibly give you access to classified information, on purpose or not? If the answer is yes, government secrets laws apply.
Are people prosecuted under them very often? No. They have been, though, and can easily be in the future; The working reality, however, is that most cases can be dealt with administratively, and don't require going through a criminal proceeding. They save the handcuffs for actual spies, or people who flaunt their violations.
One reason why I disagree with the British decision not to prosecute [[Katherine Gun]], actually. The recipient of classified information can't know all of the factors involved in classifying the information, or all of the possible effects, and thus has no right to decide to release such information. There can't be exceptions or allowances for mercy when someone breaks the trust involved with classified information. You know what you're getting into when you work with it, and you don't *have* to do the job; If you're going to do such work, it should be crystal clear that you don't get to decide whether "the people have a right to know". They don't, not unless they're cleared for it, and the default assumption is that they aren't.
But, ah, I'm venting.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Gareth Owen <wiki(a)gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2004 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Trading with the Enemy
> Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> writes:
> > Rick a écrit:
> > > Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize
> the
> > > government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi
> memorabilia. In
> > > the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
> > >
> > I am seriously asking what is wrong with what I posted here.
> Please explain
> > what I said that angered you, and what is libelous?
>
> Well, you seem pretty ignorant of the scope of the Official
> Secrets Act for a
> start. Let me quote Section I for the gist:
>
> 1. (1) A person who is or has been?
> (a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
> (b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions
> of this subsection,
> is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any
> information, document or other article relating to security or
> intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his
> position as a member of any of those services
>
> So (i) It applies to employees of the government
> (ii) Its about prevent the dissemination of classified
> information
>
> Its applicability to wikipedia is precisely nil, unless you have
> reason to
> believe British security personnel are posting classified information.
>
> Do the laws that convicted [[Robert Hanssen]] impinge on
> wikipedia's operation?
No. Similar with regards to the UK's Official Secrets Act, AFAIK, too.
You simply can *not* become subject to security restrictions, Official Secrets Act(s), etc. without knowing it.
Sorry, no. Government does NOT work that way. If you're subject to such an act, you'll *know*; You will inevitably have to complete a small mountain of paperwork to recieve access to subject information.*
Do the laws that [[Robert Hanssen]] was convicted under affect Wiki?
Do the laws that [[Katherine Gun]] was charged under affect Wiki?
In both cases, no.
In order for them to, you would have to KNOW you were recieving classified information. In the US and the UK (and in most other NATO countries, AFAIK), it's hard NOT to know: Classification markings are very, very hard to miss.
In such a situation, you really have to be impossibly stupid to recieve such information and NOT know it.
John
---
*One exception applies, that I know of: Oddly, members of the US House and Senate don't need security clearances as such. They don't go through the whole mountain of forms, the Single Scope Background Investigation, etc, etc. Instead, they're bound by an oath taken when they join the appropriate committee (or assume leadership positions like Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, or House Minority Leader). It's odd, but (amazingly, to those who know much about American government) it works; Leaks of classified information from the committees (particularly the intelligence oversight committees) have been rare.
I like Daniel Mayer's ideas about the print edition of Wikipedia. I hope
he'll work closely with Jimbo on this, with the publishers.
"You have my proxy, Mav."
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
I'm going to stop forwarding these soon, but some are just too
funny.
----- Forwarded message from Plautus Satire <plautus(a)shaw.ca> -----
From: Plautus Satire <plautus(a)shaw.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:01:26 +0000
To: jwales(a)bomis.com
Subject: signal-happy clown
Ed Poor a signal-happy clown, my friend. He says the vote is nine but he
means the index is 201.
I understand without the cheatsheet I can not break your one-time pad cypher,
unless I search through the archives of the email list and the page histories
of wikipedia.
I can make reasonable inferences from my own case, which, combined with the
cases of others, might provide an accurate approximation of the cheatsheet.
Are you convinced yet?
Better get a new back channel now, the loudmouth Ed Poor blew this one.
----- End forwarded message -----
No doubt the publishers of the print version will make some choices.
They might be interested in letting the Wikipedia community know which
article they want -- assuming they don't just take the whole thing.
Ed