Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks Booted From Amazon

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the you're-outta-here dept.

Government 528

dakameleon writes "Wikileaks has been booted from its Amazon hosting, and has now shifted to being hosted in Europe. Senator Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement, 'This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the WikiLeaks website,' which raises the question whether this was requested by the government. Senator Lieberman said Amazon's decision to cut off WikiLeaks 'is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material.'"

cancel ×

528 comments

Right then (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415838)

Nice that amazon have shown their colours... I shall no longer trade with them. Vote with your wallet, it's the only way they'll learn.

Re:Right then (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415866)

I think it's substantially more likely that they booted Wikileaks because:
1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS
2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs
3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)

I don't think it's fair to expect Amazon to keep them on even in the face of potentially high losses. Businesses are in the business of making money, after all, and this is just a financial no brainer.

Re:Right then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415878)

Then they shouldn't have accepted in the first place. That is just plain hypothetical.

Re:Right then (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415894)

I'm fairly sure businesses are entitled to change their minds when they realize they've made a mistake that might cost them more than they bargained for. Requiring all businesses to charge full on ahead even in the face of losses doesn't make much sense.

Re:Right then (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415946)

Not when they are handling something like this. If they were hosting the site for years and now they wanted to ditch them, that is something I understand. But when they accept, and only to boot them off in less then 48 hours(dunno the exact time), well that is hypocritical.

Re:Right then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416252)

It's not hypocritical; it's just poor management / decision-making processes.

While I wish more web hosting companies and the ISPs that connect them followed my principles in support of free speech* I don't necessarily fault those who give in to pressure from governments, pressure groups, and self-styled vigilantes. In a capitalist system they are responsible to the people who own the company to maximize return on their investment, and acting on principle often defies that.

* Is there a resource somewhere that would help one find such service providers?

Re:Right then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416334)

God no, then we might have to give them a bail-out so they can continue to enjoy their multimillion dollar bonuses...

Re:Right then (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415940)

Then they shouldn't have accepted in the first place.
That is just plain hypothetical.

Oh good, I was worried that it actually happened, because then it would be hypocritical.

Re:Right then (2)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416242)

No, it actually happened. Perhaps you were looking for "hypocritical"?

More probably... (5, Informative)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416020)

... they were taken down for violating Amazon's "Acceptable Use Policy":

http://aws.amazon.com/aup/ [amazon.com]

No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content

You may not use the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, or offensive. Prohibited activities or content include:

        * Illegal Activities. Any illegal activities, including advertising, transmitting, or otherwise making available gambling sites or services or disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography.
        * Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Activities that may be harmful to our users, operations, or reputation, including offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions (e.g., make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming), or engaging in other deceptive practices.
        * Infringing Content. Content that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property or proprietary rights of others.
        * Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable, including content that constitutes child pornography, relates to bestiality, or depicts non-consensual sex acts.
        * Harmful Content. Content or other computer technology that may damage, interfere with, surreptitiously intercept, or expropriate any system, program, or data, including viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, or cancelbots.

All attributes marked above could be argued by any of the parties affected by the leaks.

My favorite is "being offensive".
Fuck. I could demand 90% of the Internet to be turned off permanently on account of that alone.
You see, I'm very easily offended by a wide variety of things.

And don't you get me started on otherwise objectionable. Cause... Oh boy...

Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (4, Insightful)

dmcq (809030) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416228)

Well I had a read of the Acceptable Use Policy above and I can't see any grounds under that unless you include embarrassing officials as offensive. They're doing nothing illegal, mainly it's a question of extent compared to what newspapers do every day of the week. I guess they must have an 'or any other reason why' clause somewhere or else have just done it knowing they won't be sued.

Re:Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416270)

Well I had a read of the Acceptable Use Policy above and I can't see any grounds under that unless you include embarrassing officials as offensive. They're doing nothing illegal,

STOP RIGHT THERE because you have invalidated your comment with that sentence fragment. It's illegal in this country to distribute this information. Amazon had a legal obligation to terminate their relationship with Wikileaks. I feel that Wikileaks is doing nothing unethical or immoral, but illegal? It is most certainly illegal. Perhaps you should go read up on Civil Disobedience.

Re:Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (4, Insightful)

AigariusDebian (721386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416342)

Actually it is not illegal to distribute classified information if you are a media organization. Only the person that actually had the access and who did the distribution to the journalists can be considered as doing illegal actions. And even then such claim must first be proven in court.

Re:Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (3, Insightful)

dup_account (469516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416354)

You *Assume* it's illegal to distribute this information. If it was illegal, the US would have gone to the courts, show it was illegal, and the filed for a proper take-down notice.

This was done because of pure and simple political pressure.

This whole story shouldn't be about what wiki leaks did, or who got the information. It should be about what these "diplomats" were doing and saying about each other in a non-civilized fashion. Transparency is the biggest fear of the corrupt, like light to vampires.

Quite simply, what they told us about the patriot act. If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear.

Re:More probably... (5, Funny)

AigariusDebian (721386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416316)

Hey, Amazon! You front page is offensive to me and all other people in the world who hate Christmass shopping season. Take it down, now!

they lost a goodwill with me. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416058)

im an ecommerce developer, who implements numerous technologies. from now on, ill be advising my customers to stay away from anything amazon. not to mention that, im now less inclined to use their api to do anything with them.

let them enjoy their a few bucks a sale cut from the right-leaning, democracy-unfriendly hardliner sellers they have there.

Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (1)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416154)

let them enjoy their a few bucks a sale cut from the right-leaning, democracy-unfriendly hardliner sellers they have there.

So you mean most corporations that make significant amounts of cash and would be the bulk of their customers? I'm really sure they are shaking in their boots that some minor companies will no longer be using their system.

Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (2)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416232)

If you were really a good consultant worth your wage you would do what's best for your clients regardless of your personal political agenda. You can decide what clients to take, and you certainly make choices based on your ideals when its your own business. You should make that choice and not take the client if you know you won't be able to steer them towards what is really the best solution for them.

Sure if you client wants to run a politically sensitive website you might be very correct in advising them that Amazon might not be a good choice because they have a history now drop customers that attract what in their view is the wrong kind of traffic and attention. For the vast majority of other clients who want pretty basic hosting and commerce services Amazon is probably at least as good a choice as anything else and should at least be considered. Be a good consultant and take care of your customers. Do your think every defense attorney really thinks their client is innocent, you think the civil guys always think their client is in the right? No they think they can win or if they are on retainer they do their level best to win putting their personal feelings aside. You should try being a professional and doing that.

Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416298)

Money is not everything. Not everybody wants to be a whore.

Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416300)

If you were really a good consultant worth your wage you would do what's best for your clients regardless of your personal political agenda.

Freedom of speech is best for ALL of your clients. Putting them on a hosting provider which will terminate them if they elect to use their website as a soapbox is limiting their options and not in their best interest.

You should try being a professional and doing that.

You should try being a patriotic citizen, and stand up for your rights. Either you have principles or you don't. Anyone willing to compromise their "principles" never had them in the first place, they were just nice ideas they had no intention of living up to.

Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416308)

Get a load of this guy.

Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (1)

dup_account (469516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416382)

Your first paragraph is what is crushing freedom and destroying America. Of course we have a moral obligation and should protect our interests.

If you truly believed what you said in the first paragraph you would never vote republican or any kind of conservative/libertarian. It is absolutely against your best interests to do that. You are merely shifting the costs of a small percentage of peolations (the super-rich) onto the rest of the population.

Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416328)

Wow, how unprofessional can you be? Please, if you can't act like a professional, go and do something else.

Re:Right then (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416076)

1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS

No, that was the US Government.

2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs

Are you really suggesting that denying service to minorities is an acceptable cost saving measure?

3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)

Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?

Let me get this straight. Amazon is doing evil, but it's a solid business decision so we shouldn't hold it against them?

I don't quite follow that.

Re:Right then (4, Insightful)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416170)

With AWS EC2/S3 you pay for bandwidth. Considering the amount of traffic I don't think this has anything to do with high costs (or perhaps Wikileaks racked up a huge bill due to the DDOS and couldn't pay). I would like to see a reaction from Amazon.

This shows what can happen if you host your business "in the cloud" and the cloud doesn't like your business, though this is an extreme example. As I recall they were booted from regular hosters before...

Re:Right then (1)

dup_account (469516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416402)

I think Amazon would be pissed because DDoS is their cost. They usually guarantee protection against that in the SLA.

Not sure how I feel about this (2)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415872)

As owner of a hosting provider myself and the talks about the DDoS and such, I can see why a hosting provider might want to rid themselves of a problem that would cause issues for other customers, but at the same time, isn't Amazon big enough? At least everyone likes to say how big they are. Where are those zealots now? Some people are realizing that corporations are in control of freedom of speech, not the government. Well that's nothing new [suso.org] .

Re:Not sure how I feel about this (3, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415972)

Some people are realizing that corporations are in control of freedom of speech, not the government.

Freedom of speech protects us from infringement from the government, not other people or corporations.

Re:Not sure how I feel about this (0)

subsonic (173806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416336)

Especially when you're an international organization headed by someone who does not have protection under the United States Constitution.

Re:Not sure how I feel about this (1)

leehwtsohg (618675) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416338)

And what if the government pressures a corporation to not allow you to speak?

Re:Right then (5, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415980)

It was a headline story in this morning's Metro (a freesheet read by approximately everyone in London going to work on the tube): people boycotting Amazon for kicking Wikileaks off.

Possibly not the best meme to have propagating when people are attempting to one-click their Christmas shopping.

Re:Right then (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416012)

I know that I was planning to spend money there this Christmas. Indeed I am currently returning something which arrived from Amazon damaged/defective, and now I will simply collect my refund and look for the replacement elsewhere.

I doubt they were given much choice, but they chose to bend over instead of appealing to their customer base. Even so it's probably the correct decision if not the right one.

Re:Right then (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416082)

I am particularly annoyed as Amazon basically solved the nuisance of present buying for me last year. This year I'm going to have to actually think. Gah!

Re:Right then (-1, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416376)

"instead of appealing to their customer base."

I'm sorry , which customer base would this be then? I use them often but I've got not time for Assange and his crusade against the US and I'm glad Amazon showed his travelling circus the door.

Re:Right then (2)

Stellian (673475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416024)

Nice that amazon have shown their colours

The color in question being green.
It's a simple case of a messenger defecting from his duty in a primitive world that no longer adheres to the "don't kill the messenger" principle.

By all means, hunt Assange like Osama, seize the Wikileaks domains with ICANN’s help, DDoS Europe and use Palin’s fat ass to plug the internets. It’s the patriotic ‘right decision’.

Re:Right then (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416034)

Personally I agree with Amazon and will be voting with my wallet - new kindle for me! The traitors should be tried for treason, and if guilty hung and shot.

Re:Right then (2)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416122)

Nice that amazon have shown their colours... I shall no longer trade with them. Vote with your wallet, it's the only way they'll learn.

Never been one to do much business with amazon before, guess I will have to, as you put it "Vote with your wallet", and start shopping with them.

Think I will stick with Amazon (0, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416260)

because the angsty crowd which has taken over /. in the last few years is the last group I want to be associated with. I mean, really, if the amount of protesting, chest thumping ,wearing sackcloth, that you see expressed on message boards like this translated into the real world it would really have to be a different place. Yet it isn't. Why not? Because this is where the effort ended for those angst ridden posters.

When working a friends election campaign we didn't have any of those types around, oh sure some would show up ONCE. Apparently they are more "idea people" and the foot work is best left to other people. We just nod our heads when they showed up, and promptly ignored them knowing they would not return. Pretty much for the same who posted on his site. Its really easy to know who is worth paying attention to and who is not.

Nah, I will stick with Amazon. Their decision has no effect on me. Wikileaks by its very nature needs to stand on its own. We have no right to expect any other companies to support them nor do we have a right to require them to do so. Frankly and publicly traded company would be nuts to do so. Wikileaks needs to rat on the banks they claim they will very soon because once they get their guy all this will vanish.

Re:Right then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416314)

For similar reasons, I avoid Rackspace (and their subsidiary Slicehost) because Rackspace cut off the Quran burning preacher. He was nutty, obnoxious, and even bigoted, but I don't think what he was doing rose to the level of hate speech. It really disturbs me that they essentially bowed to political pressure to take down a controversial site.

Re:Right then (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416374)

Your right. I shall buy an other kindle. As a company is more interesting in keeping their services running then a long fight with legal departments and the United States, over storing illegal classified documents.

This is not whistle blowing stuff, most educated people know a lot of the material anyways or at least had a good inkling what was going on. However it is just embarrassing stuff to the nations.

How would you feel if you let a friend borrow your computer and they downloaded your journals or some questionable photos and post it on the internet for everyone to see. I am not talking about identity theft or material that would get you fired from most jobs but just stuff that will make you embarrassed.

This information is the property of the US government (Weither or not if you agree that this should be the case is immaterial at the moment) thus the government has the rights to tell any organization to remove it that is in its jurisdiction. This is unlike the wiretapping a few years ago, as it know the information it just wants it to be stopped.

If Amazon would fight this.
1. They will most likely loose and suffer huge fines.
2. Millions of dollars spent on legal
3. Costs will be pushed to the consumer.

There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415850)

"If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't object to us searching you car, or home, or spying on your internet."

You've been telling us that for years Mr. Senator. Are you now saying you no longer believe that? Hmmm. First you spied on us, and performed unconstitutional/illegal searches ... and now WE are spying on you. The wheel turns does it not Mr. Politician?

Fucking asshole.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415876)

Please report to the nearest thought police station for your thought crimes.

How DARE you question the motivations of a powerful Senator and corporations in general????

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (4, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415952)

This is the most ridiculous sentiment to come out of this entire thing.

Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world. Diplomacy allows countries to resolve conflicts and solve problems without throwing bombs at each other. And, you want other countries, your allies, to be able to approach your country with issues about their own security from threatening neighbors, without necessarily throwing gasoline on the flames.

Both of those things [i]require secrecy[/i]. Both of those things [i]require confidential communication[/i].

It may be true that the US Government (and ALL governments) do things that overstep the bounds of power. But all diplomacy and negotiations require some measure of confidence, and all alliances require the ability to have confidential communication.

This leak wasn't about exposing some massive corruption about the US putting drugs in the water supply. It was about releasing a bunch of documents, mostly about either relatively mundane topics or communications between countries or embassies.

Strong diplomacy is worth the secrecy that comes with confidential communication. Jeopardizing that to "fight the man" is certainly criminal and probably insane.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (5, Interesting)

rastos1 (601318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416004)

Presumably, you want your government to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

Care to specify where are the boundaries of this region in case of USA government?

Ah don't bother. The answer is right here [wikileaks.org] :

To be a real power, Patten said, a country must be ready and able to adopt and implement a policy, even if the rest of the world considers it unwise. Europeans may agree or disagree with US policy, but they admire that the US is ready to carry out the policies it thinks best, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. Under this yardstick, the EU will never be a "real power" because there is always someone in the room who is overly cautious, and will insist on looking at matters "sensibly."

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416028)

Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

I want my country to influence the whole world positively. Lies only beget more lies, they do not bring lasting peace.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416134)

Yep, the USA's elected leaders ought to be leading the world by example. Doubly so when waging wars against idealists.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416040)

Wikileaks can't have the luxury of choosing what they will or will not publish, the whole purpose of that site, is to publish secret documents irrelevant of that they think about that said material. It's the job of the person who was sitting in front of that computer to see the futility of leaking such documents(if I was to concede your point, for which I don't).

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (0)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416050)

Nice bbcode tags. Stora snoppar.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416062)

>>>Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

You presume wrong.

I don't give a fuck about what happens outside US territory. What I want is a government that is weak w/ most of the power belonging to the people ("every man a king of his own domain"). Secrecy of things like COICA (copyright/three-strike law) and ACTA (more copyright protection but on the global scale) that affect citizens is bullshit. It should be out in the open, not hidden, otherwise representative government Can Not work.

What you are supporting is basically a return to the European Dark Ages, where the leaders operated in the dark without the people's knowledge, and the citizens were just pawns in their leader's games.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (1, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416094)

"Both of those things [i]require secrecy[/i]. Both of those things [i]require confidential communication[/i]."

I can tell you've been cutting and pasting this text by the incorrect markup syntax.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416352)

I just foe'd him for this practice, so I hope you're right. There's nothing worse than a lazy ideologue bot except the idiot salesdroids at Wally world.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (0)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416392)

Go look for it. I used those tags here because other forums have mainly switched to them. I've had a positive comment history here for what, 10 years?

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (1)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416144)

leshan, I understand the point of your argument and I've heard others make this case. It certainly sounds logical, but it seems to forget the fact that the governments (all of them) should be to the point of serving their people. Even when we are being diplomatic with other countries, the point is usually to help their people (not their government) or to help our people. The point of view that the government should have secrets that should be kept from everyone seems like you think the government should exist as a separate entity with its own self interests and that really couldn't be any further from the founding doctrines of most of today's democracies.

Obviously governments have major things to hide. Obviously. And obviously what is said to the public can be in complete disagreement with what really happens. But I think its good to unravel all that once in a while so that you can reset the board and we can all really see what is going on. Otherwise its too hard for the citizens to know what is up and what is down.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416090)

Thats what I was going to say.
But its a good job you got there first, because I would have used a lot more swearing.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (2)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416104)

Also,
Countdown to the release of the cables dated 1991-2002.
You know they're gonna be fun.

Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416306)

but according to wikipedia hes effectively left his party by supporting the republican candidate for president why has he still got any political power why did not the dems kick him out at that point.

This is like George Galloway and his grandstanding stunts in the UK

Wiki Leaks Lover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415852)

Boo Amazon

Site moved, data had not (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415860)

I clicked on wikileaks site last night just to see if it worked. The main page worked but when you clicked on a link about the Diplomatic Cables, it re-directed me to a graphical chart page which had nothing to do with it.

I guess they were still moving data at that point.

Re:Site moved, data had not (5, Interesting)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415880)

The data wasn't hosted on Amazon, only the front page.. Which makes this even weirder, they weren't even hosting the leaked material on Amazon.

Would have got first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415862)

but someone leaked my intention to post & ive been booted from my isp

" illegally seized material" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415864)

Wow, how did Wikileaks get an Army of its own to "Seize" material illegally?

If you want to keep data secret, you hide it and lock it away.

Another example that all the talk of "Security" in this country is a joke...

No kindle for me.. (4, Insightful)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415868)

I was actually considering buying a Kindle despite its nonstandard format, but this makes me reconsider..
If they cave this easy, how can I trust that they won't remotely remove any books the US government deems undesirable?

Re:No kindle for me.. (2)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415970)

Mobi is a nonstandard format?

(Yeah, OK, lack of ePub puts me off Kindle too)

You the man Assange! (0)

coolmanxx (150620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415882)

Hack the planet!

The information WANTS to be free!

Oh no (3)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415884)

Guess it's gonna be harder for Wikileaks to find a host for politically relevant, shocking revelations such as Nicolas Sarkozy chasing a rabbit around the office [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Oh no (1)

mewt (1057562) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416348)

pricless. May the Gods of the internet bless Wikileaks

Burn fingers (2)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415890)

If I were Amazon I would not want to burn my fingers on hosting something as controversial as Wikileaks. Amazon is a company after all, and they can miss trouble like toothache.

Is anyone else going to leave Amazon over this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415902)

Helping to cover-up illegal and immoral deeds is not acceptable.

My business will never use Amazon again.

I'm going to keep asking them why 'till I get satisfactory responses and then I will publish them.

Re:Is anyone else going to leave Amazon over this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416234)

This along with a few other reasons put me off from shopping there. I'll still use their site to read opinions on products I want to buy but I'll ultimately buy some place else. Their affiliate system already tells me what shops to search for on Google anyway.

also drafted the kill switch (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34415904)

From Lieberman's wikipedia page,

"On June 19, 2010, Lieberman introduced a bill called "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010",[75] which he co-wrote with Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE). If signed into law, this controversial bill, which the American media dubbed the "Kill switch bill", would grant the President emergency powers over the Internet. However, all three co-authors of the bill issued a statement claiming that instead, the bill "[narrowed] existing broad Presidential authority to take over telecommunications networks".[76]"

Gitmo still needed? (5, Informative)

rastos1 (601318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415906)

There are people that do not follow the current events around wikileaks because they consider it un-interesting. They should [telegraph.co.uk] :

"We are also investigating whether the prosecutor's application to have Mr Assange held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners - again a unique request - is in any way linked to this matter and the recent, rather bellicose US statements of an intention to prosecute Mr Assange."

Emphasis mine.

Re:Gitmo still needed? (2)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416116)

All that means is that they want to treat him like a terrorist. It's not that unique a request.

Re:Gitmo still needed? (5, Insightful)

CxDoo (918501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416208)

The fact that you (& many others) consider this not unique (i.e. normal) is even worse than the request itself.

Wikileaks really needs to change its focus (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415920)

The majority of the classified information they've dump has been the sort of shit that the federal government produces in reams and forgets about. It's not "whistle-blower grade" materials like the Pentagon Papers. All it's likely to do is make the politicians more paranoid and to impose security theater on federal agencies. There's already enough of that within the federal government itself. The last thing we need is more.

What Wikileaks needs to do is focus on stuff like exposing Bank of America which it says it plans to do. What the big banks have done to this country and world is actually worse than what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their behavior has quite literally crippled the ability of the housing market in the US to function, ever, without radical political intervention [codemonkeyramblings.com] to clean up the title disputes, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. It's more likely than not that their manipulations have us on the precipice of a depression that is far worse than the Great Depression. Sure, we found out that an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially told; the big banks have laid the foundation for an economic environment in which a lot of people in our own country may very well starve to death before it's all said and done.

If Assange's goal really is to clean house, then there are many targets that are softer, more inviting and more damning when exposed than most of what Wikileaks has accomplished with the DoD. If I had his ear, I'd tell him to go after Goldman Sachs. Go for the mother load of information from them. Get someone to hand over all of the server logs of communications between them and federal officials. Or better yet...

Target the Federal Reserve.

Re:Wikileaks really needs to change its focus (1)

coolmanxx (150620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415968)

Let us all hope he stays alive and free long enough to carry out his mission! (and please Julian, don't accept cups of tea from strangers (or any cookies for that matter)!

Re:Wikileaks really needs to change its focus (1)

ThatOtherGuy435 (1773144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415986)

That would be great. I would love to see criminal charges for criminal actions at the banks and financial sector in general.

What everyone seems to miss lately, however, is that he can only publish information that is leaked to him.

He's not hacking the DoD or Bank of America. Someone from internal to the organization(s) sent him all this documentation.

Re:Wikileaks really needs to change its focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416048)

What the big banks have done to this country and world is actually worse than what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. (...) Their behavior has quite literally crippled the ability of the housing market in the US to function (emphasis mine)

So it's worse because it affects you.

While Great Depression II will affect most of the world, the US and the UK are the effectively bankrupt nations. The rest of the world will do just fine as long as the US and UK don't start World War III.

Re:Wikileaks really needs to change its focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416074)

Um, you do know that Wikileaks is just a facilitator, right? That they just publish what other people give them?

Re:Wikileaks really needs to change its focus (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416098)

Sure, we found out that an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially told; the big banks have laid the foundation for an economic environment in which a lot of people in our own country may very well starve to death before it's all said and done.

Starving versus dead is not really a very water-tight argument.

Get real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416158)

What the big banks have done to this country and world is actually worse than what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I suggest you ask the people who really know the answer to this: the dead innocents and their family members. Gee, it's not exactly the same answer you arrived at, is it?

No matter how you spin it, those people are infinitely more qualified than you to provide the answer.

"an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially (5, Insightful)

SomethingOrOther (521702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416168)

Sure, we found out that an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially told

Just read that line back to yourself a few times........ THAT is why this is important.
Thank you wikileaks.

Re:Wikileaks really needs to change its focus (1, Interesting)

Ben4jammin (1233084) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416188)

The sad part is, we don't need Wikileaks to know that the Fed should be abolished

http://www.amazon.com/Web-Debt-Ellen-Hodgson-Brown/dp/0979560888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291296798&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]

Whether it is a failed educational system or just plain apathy, the Fed really doesn't have to hide that much of what they do. No one seems interested in questioning why a country that has a sovereign right to print money ends up TRILLIONS in debt.

http://www.slate.com/id/2271828/ [slate.com]

From the above link: The Fed makes money ex nihilo, pulling it out of thin air rather than taking it from its coffers. Then, it pushes the money into the economy by buying up assets from banks.

So the banks get all this free money at the same time we talk about "deficit reduction" in the form of extending the retirement age, cutting medicare/medicade benefits and a host of other spending (except wars of course). Maybe if we didn't give the banks free money we would have money for things like health care.

Wikileaks needs to focus (1)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416276)

I have to agree. I think WikiLeaks has a case of target fixation. They made a name for themselves for the Iraq documents and then again with the Afgan documents. Both of these releases honestly just seemed like huge dumps of data with some cursory investigation to make sure names were blotted out. I honestly thought the point of Wikileaks was to point out specific problems and back them up with evidence. In all three of their data dumps, they seem to have lost this objective. There is too much data to be going through for most people, so instead you get a few incidents that people stumble across. I would have rather that they spent the time to look at the documents, identify what they believe are problems, illegal behavior, etc, and then build a package / case of evidence. If they had released a "package" of documents that showed how the US was spying on the UN and focused completely on that, it would have had a much bigger impact than "oh noes, your state department data isn't secure. Ha ha ha"

Business & politics shouldn't mix (4, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415928)

I know it happens all the time.. but I strongly believe that business shouldn't get involved in politics, and politics should not get involved in business.

Because of the strong opposition from especially the USA, Wikileaks has become a political faction (rather than just media)... the line between media and politics is thin anyway.

so, it's a good decision for Amazon to break all ties with Wikileaks. It's just that the timing makes it a political decision in itself.
The USA growled so loudly about wikileaks that a lot of organisations that wouldn't care about it now chose that it's wiser to be against wikileaks.

Re:Business & politics shouldn't mix (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416174)

On the contrary, businesses, corporations, private tyrannies, they have all shown time and time again that they will destroy lives, towns, environments, etc... all for the sake of the bottom dollar. They are utterly ruthless and amoral. If corporate personhood were actually embodied in a single person, it would be a sociopathic pathology. We NEED the government as the only entity big enough, to reign in these sociopaths. This would happen, if government actually represented the people (the ideal) but until that day, business will have to content itself with spending large-ish sums of money on lobbyists to buy the government it needs.

Re:Business & politics shouldn't mix (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416206)

So hosting companies should vet the content that appears on pages they host? Apart from anything else that may make them liable for the content they don't refuse. How about postal services choosing not to allow people to post certain items? Or phone companies cutting off the phone when you say certain words? Or tollways refusing to let you travel on them because you have a red car (more prone to accidents don't ya know)? Or airlines choosing not to allow certain ethnic groups to fly as they are an increased risk? Wouldn't want to live in your world...

Re:Business & politics shouldn't mix (1)

AigariusDebian (721386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416282)

So, if USA growls loudly at BBC, it will also 'become a political faction' and can be cut off from the Internet by all USA ISPs?

Hypocrites (5, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34415998)

When the MI6 operatives list [slashdot.org] was being mirrored by American citizens, MI6 said that it would "endanger the lives of agents", and yet the U.S. government did not take down any web sites, and American citizens were not threatened with prosecution for publishing the list. Now an Australian citizen releases data that the U.S. government would rather didn't see the light of day, and U.S. politicians are calling for censorship, internet kill switches, and executions and assassinations of everybody involved [telegraph.co.uk] . If China or Russia did the same, these politicians would be crying crocodile tears for the death of freedom. Hypocrites.

typo (3, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416014)

Correct link: MI6 operatives list [cryptome.org] .

Re:typo (1)

ForgedArtificer (1777038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416216)

Remember, kids, being the biggest, baddest, meanest, toughest and most powerful xxcountryxx bully in the school means that nothing you do has to make sense or follow any sort of logic, as a xxnuclear missilexx xx"anti-terrorist operation"xx punch in the mouth will quiet any accusations of hypocrisy - and everyone involved is already aware of it.

Your xxGovernmentxx Neighbourhood Bully, terrorizing everyone else in the xxworldxx schoolyard into absolute, unthinking submission since, oh, let's say July 4, 1776.

Certain words and phrases have been redacted to protect the xxguiltyxx xxUnited States governmentxx your friends in Washington.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416084)

"+1 right on" from me.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416164)

"[The] truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is." - Winston Churchill

'nuff said.

Re:Hypocrites (5, Informative)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416230)

Roll back pre 9-11 and they were quite happy for Noraid to raise funds in the US Irish community to help fund the bombing campaigns of the IRA. Hypocrisy has never been a problem in the US of A. Only have to look at the one eyed Israeli policy to see that.

Re:Hypocrites (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416394)

We straight gave OBL the money he used for 9/11, in the name of eliminating Heroin production. Anyone who still doesn't understand what's going on here is beyond help and you should consider them to be nothing more than NPCs... mobs if you will.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416346)

I agree. Freedom of speech must be complete - no exceptions, especially for unpopular ideas. Freedom from prosecution for violations of law are a different matter completely.

If Amazon is refusing to host based on a pre-existing policy, then that is fine. I'll never use their services again. Corporations need to have some backbone and only do what is legally required when properly presented with a legal request from a judge. Taking down servers without a legal mandate is something we expect from GoDaddy, not Amazon. Shame on Amazon, if they did this without being served from a court. If they were served - then I don't have any issue.

Blurry vision (0)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416044)

They tought that where in the cloud, but now looks like coming from a smoking gun.

And thats how democracy goes down .... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416046)

not even with thunderous applauses. with some senators prosecuting those who give information to the public, and some private companies obeying. all is well.

Re:And thats how democracy goes down .... (2)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | more than 3 years ago | (#34416360)

So if I break into your house, take all of your personal records and put them up online... its good right? Free speech and all that. Wikileaks isn't doing anything but prove to the government that their data isn't secure. In retaliation, the government needs to prove to itself and its allies that it can secure data. Most of the documents they've released don't prove anything, they are just documents. Sure, a few of them do point out things that the US government is doing wrong, but wikileaks itself doesn't seem to be building a case against that wrong. They're merely putting your credit card statements online and waiting for someone else to go through them to see if they can find inconsistencies that prove that you're cheating on your wife.

The fact that Amazon is working with NSA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416340)

...setting up a private EC2 cloud for them has NOTHING to do with this I am sure.

Misdirected Villainizing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34416372)

While I agree that Wikileaks should have done a much better job of auditing and redacting information that identifies sources in the recent leak, I think the anger directed at Wikileaks and Julian Assange is misdirected and blown way out of proportion.

As far as I know, Wikileaks does not actively investigate anything. They simply provide an anonymous publishing method for whistleblowers.

They have published information about many private companies and countries other than the U.S. in the past.

After the Iraq and Afghan leaks, it appears the U.S. has gone after him ("alleged rape") and his site. I don't know why the previous leaks are missing, but it may be a technical issue or maybe it's a reaction to the (apparently U.S. led) witch hunt.

I would suggest that people direct their sense of patriotism against the people/person who leaked the info to Wikileaks instead... and (as with everything) don't believe everything you hear on Fox News, MSNBC, or any other single media source.

As for why other less-democratic countries secret info hasn't been leaked on the same scale, I can't say for sure. But I can speculate that it is in part due to stronger repercussions against such leaks. I'm sure some countries would have no qualms about silencing a leaker and their entire family in ways our rule of law would not condone.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...