Commons:Deletion requests/File:Classification guide for Project BULLRUN.pdf

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Classification guide for Project BULLRUN.pdf

[edit]

appears to be a U.S. government document classified as "top secret"; publication may not be legal under U.S. law section 793 of Espionage Act section 798 Rybec (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Classification guide for cryptanalysis.pdf about another upload by the same contributor. It would have been better if I'd made a single nomination. Could both documents be discussed here, please, unless there are notable differences? Rybec (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Secrecy laws are a non-copyright restriction. Per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions: "Non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." The Wikimedia Foundation may still delete the file if they believe that they are legally required to. Sandstein (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published on on the Guardian's website. The files are different, One is the classification guide for cryptanalysis in general, the other for project BULLRUN in particular. As a practical matter, the Guardian dosen't appear likely to remove them from their website.--Paulmd199 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to Paulmd199 and a message that was left on my talk page) I'm assuming the Guardian site is not in U.S. territory. The Wikimedia servers are. I didn't read the Espionage Act very carefully, but I didn't notice an exception for information that has appeared in a newspaper. The forced landing of the Bolivian president's plane [1] tells me that the U.S. government doesn't mind looking foolish in its efforts to suppress this information. Rybec (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guardian also has servers in the U.S. and a U.S. edition. Greenwald actually works for the U.S. division of the newspaper. For that matter the Washington Post also published classified U.S. government documents. Also, there had been court cases and it is ruled that newspapers have the freedom of speech to publish classified documents leaked to them. Wikipedia has this freedom too. See en:New York Times Co. v. United States which ruled that The New York Times had the freedom to publish the Pentagon Papers. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think, we should not make it easier for the government to suppress. If they want to make formal requests, I suspect Wikipedia might actually fight. Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia has described Snowden as a hero http://live.wsj.com/video/wikipedia-wales-calls-ed-snowden-an-american-hero/B62AA74E-0984-41CD-BCAE-FC4E60F1B622.html#!B62AA74E-0984-41CD-BCAE-FC4E60F1B622. --Paulmd199 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cited case applied only to that particular situation, according to the linked article. It did not necessarily set a precedent for all situations. --Joe Sewell (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We are concerned here only with copyright. Other restrictions may apply, but they are not our concern. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Classification_guide_for_Project_BULLRUN.pdf&oldid=104317352"