Wikipedia Points The Middle Finger at The FBI
There’s an argument going on about an image on Wikipedia. A photo of the FBI’s seal has become the hot topic over on Wikipedia’s FBI Talk Page and in The Tech Media. Apparently the FBI is unimpressed with the posting of the seal. So what’s a secretive law enforcement agency to do? Call the lawyers, cite the law and write a letter of course.
The problem with all this starts in that very letter. It cites a law, but appears to go beyond the law and try to improperly apply it. No surprise there in Modern American Legal Tactics. Take down notices and false copyright claims are the start of any good battle on The Internet. It’s really easy to press that Flag/Report Button somewhere and not have the person posting the content fight back. Wikipedia is not taking that approach and they wrote right back to the FBI stating the FBI better check its source material because the citations just don’t line up.
The argument has event got it’s own bit of documentation on the Wikipedia’s entry on the history of The Seal. The problem of it all, other than exactly how lame it is the FBI would go after Wikpiedia rather than any number organizations with the same content up, is all in their letter. The letter that the FBI delivered claims the use of the emblem is “problematic” and claims nowhere that is unlawful, a critique The Wikimedia Foundation was quick to note in their reproach. Not only did the FBI take a false start, they’ve also altered the language of the law and removed sections in their letter to specifically manipulate how it reads. The deservedly sarcastic retort from Mike Godwin, General Counsel for The Wikimedia Foundation, contains such gems as:
“First, thank you for taking my call Thursday, and congratulations on your imminent retirement after so many years of service. It’s unfortunate that on such an otherwise happy occasion I must inform you that the Bureau’s reading of 18 U.S.C. 701 is both idiosyncratic (made especially so by your strategic redaction of important language) and, more importantly, incorrect. I’m writing you, of course, regarding your recent letter reiterating the Bureau’s invocation of 18 U.S.C. 701 and your demand for removal of the image of the FBI Seal on Wikipedia (images of which are widely available elsewhere, including on the Encyclopedia Britannica website, last I checked).”
And
“Finally, while I sympathize with your footnoted desire to claim that “the plain meaning” of the statute supports your broad view of Section 701’s scope, we note that you specifically removed the language that communicates the plain meaning of “other insignia.” In context, this seems an ironic stroke.”
The Wikipedia’s strike back hasn’t gone without controversy, even on it’s own site with user and editor comments ranging from urging compliance with the FBI to putting up pranks to taunt The Bureau. Despite the FBI’s threat of “Failure to comply may result in further legal action,” not another peep has been heard as news organizations and internet users alike laugh and wonder why our tax dollars were spent on such a frivolous move. There might be some concern for misuse of the image, but with it floating around so many other places on The Internet, including The Online Encyclopedia Brittanica, why attack a site with a legitimate use.
I personally think someone over at The FBI got in a conference room and shot out a real bone-headed idea everyone forgot to shoot down before the meeting ended. I would love to know how much got spent on this little debacle though. Anyone have any estimates on the cost for The FBI to pull this little stunt?
