On 29/11/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I've got no problem with "freedom of information" and certainly think that this alleged memo should be published widely when and if it is released/exists/etc., but Wikipedia and the WMF cannot be vehicles for this sort of political controversy (talk about POV pushing). If WP has any legal obligation to follow the Official Secrets Act or whatever (I imagine it does -- the idea that the UK and US wouldn't have worked out these sorts of things in treaties seems unrealistic to me) then it shouldn't break the law. Doing so would put the whole project at risk for what would in practice be little gain. I do not think there will be a difficulty in finding people to post the contents of whatever this memo is. If it comes down to Wikipedia being the last possible outlet in the world, then maybe we could talk about it.
I have been not following the news at all for the last week or so, but...
The major issue with publishing militarially sensitive material in the UK is D-notices; for the Americans, these are basically standing requests from HMG that before detailed information is published on various issues - nuclear weapons, aspects of the security services, military operational plans - that "advice be sought". A polite warning of sensitive areas which would probably result in various legal controversy in order that it not all end in tears, so that someone can't say "Well, I didn't realise you didn't *want* me to publish the names of members of SIS..."
Officially, they have no legal standing, and are simply advisory; in practice it's a "voluntary code" which is followed most of the time, and it's understood that going against them is clearly seen as crossing the Rubicon. You might not wind up in court, but you'd certainly know you were dipping your toes in the shark pool. These have no legal force outside the UK barring in the sense of "a request through gritted teeth", and I have a vague recollection that OSA and DORA are really only applicable once someone's signed them - and I would hope any of our contributors who have are being sensible and restricting their writing to articles about kittens, just to be safe.
So "breaking the law" is debatable. But actively making a political point of the fact we're considering doing it? Oooh, that would be so not good and god no and ugh. WP:NOT a campaigning body; this would be a vastly more contentious issue on-list were it solely in the US, I suspect.
Fastfission is, as always, being sensible. I concur that, if this is significant, we should write about it. But we should not write about it simply to make a political point, not publish it simply to make that point. There will, after all, be no shortage of copies of it hosted around the world to refer to.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk