4 ms·

While data isn't encrypted-by-default on AWS, this plants a flag in the ground on where Amazon stands in a way that does not sit well with me. Given Amazon's s

While data isn't encrypted-by-default on AWS, this plants a flag in the ground on where Amazon stands in a way that does not sit well with me. Given Amazon's stance here, I am disinclined to running infrastructure on their cloud. The USA is becoming less and less friendly as a place to operate a business.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
CobrastanJorji 11y ago
THIS is the thing that makes you worry about where Amazon stands in relation to government interests? Amazon has a rich history of rolling over to government interests whenever their profits may be at risk. A great example is the Wikileaks case. Wikileaks was running on EC2, but Joe Lieberman called Jeff Bezos and said "Hey, you want more of those sweet, sweet government contracts? Take Wikileaks offline." And Amazon immediately complied. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-websi...
- Houshalter 11y ago
  Well in fairness not hosting Wikileaks wasn't violating any user's rights or privacy.
  - rosser 11y ago
    You don't think that Amazon's pulling Wikileaks' hosting at the urging of a sitting Senator might have any First Amendment implications? I mean, obviously, no law was passed, so it doesn't violate the letter of the law, but the spirit?
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      Perhaps, but blame the government, not Amazon. I'm not sure there's even any evidence they really threatened to do anything. And as I said, they didn't leak users private information. In fact it didn't even succeed at shutting down Wikileaks, so it didn't really hurt anyone.