21 ms·

Whatever you think about Jeff, this is the correct way to handle such things. We should all have the same character in such a situation (despite how the situati

Whatever you think about Jeff, this is the correct way to handle such things. We should all have the same character in such a situation (despite how the situation arose; in this case via an affair). Jeff has MANY other issues of moral disfortitude (we all do to some degree, though not at these scales). However, this particular event is to be applauded and emulated.

gumby 8y ago
Agree, good for him!
buboard 8y ago
This sounds too bad to be true , but if true i think it's how any sensible person should handle it. I mean, a dik pik who will care a month later. Did they really think that such misguided extortion would work? It really doesn't make much sense unless someone else was pushing forward this extortion
- anonu 8y ago
  I'm gonna guess that the National Enquirer knows what the response will be when they say "we'll release your pics". They probably weren't expecting this move by bezos
optimiz3 8y ago
Amazon could pull a CloudFlare and knock them off the internet as nationalenquirer.com seems to be hosted on AWS. My guess is Amazon/Bezos already has multiple backups of the Enquirer's digital assets for forensic purposes. https://twitter.com/ryanhuber/status/1093665718464327680 https://twitter.com/ryanhuber/status/1093665718464327680
- kerng 8y ago
  I'm not sure if you are joking, but that's exactly what they should not be doing. They also can't just go poke around their customer's data. That would be very unwise...
  - optimiz3 8y ago
    Well come on - don't host your business on a company you plan on antagonizing. Pretty sure AWS has contract clauses that allow them to deny service or perform forensics when criminal activity is suspected, and blackmail would certainly qualify.
    - techntoke 8y ago
      Pretty sure that AWS doesn't have permission to conduct criminal investigations. Those would need to be turned over to a criminal prosecutor. It would be a pretty scary world if corporations were able to police consumer and business data whenever they "suspected" something. Talk about political hit jobs.
      - tribby 8y ago
        (I think) the parent comment is implying that you might explicitly give such permission to amazon by agreeing to their terms when purchasing service. even if that isn't the case, the amount of effort required for amazon to obtain a warrant from a magistrate judge or however they'd play it is negligible.
      - optimiz3 8y ago
        Why does it need to meet the bar of a criminal investigation? All they need to do is to tick one of the boxes in their ToS and kick them off their property. Heck, there's an entire sub-category of law colloquially known as "Amazon-law", where you hire folks who specialize in navigating the intricacies of Amazon's policies so your business doesn't get crushed: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketplace-scams-seller-court-appeal-reinstatement https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketpl... Edit: https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ TL;DR - they can do whatever they want. No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive. Prohibited activities or content include: Illegal, Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Any activities that are illegal, that violate the rights of others, or that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography, offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions, make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming. 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. Our Monitoring and Enforcement We reserve the right, but do not assume the obligation, to investigate any violation of this Policy or misuse of the Services or AWS Site.
- ck425 8y ago
  That would be a terrible idea. We're at a point in time where the public, politicians and the tech community itself are becoming wary of tech monopolies. Currently Amazon has avoided the brunt of it (mostly due to being consumer friendly unlike Facebook) and the scrutiny it has had, has been focused on it's retail business. Bezos booting someone off AWS would bring a ton of public scrutiny to an even more powerful monopoly, one that the public and politicians are by and large ignorant of. Plus it would (rightly) shake the tech community out of its complacency around cloud lock in and encourage us to explore solutions. (I realise there's already a lot of good work happening around this, but it's not an issue I've seen the wider industry talking about much)
- skrebbel 8y ago
  Aannnd in a spectacular twist to this beautiful soap opera, https://www.nationalenquirer.com https://www.nationalenquirer.com is down. Even if AWS has nothing to do with this it (unfairly) reflects extremely bad on them.
  - scottmf 8y ago
    Are you in the EU?
onetimemanytime 8y ago
Yep, otherwise he'd be their hostage...do this other thing or we'll release the pics.
hackathonguy 8y ago
It's worth noting that Jeff Bezos has a lot to gain from publishing these threats. While publishing the descriptions of the photographs may sting, publishing the photos themselves would hurt a lot more. Now that he's made the accusations public, AMI could not plausibly publish the actual photos.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  They won't publish them. But I'll guarantee you they will anonymously leak out on the internet. There is no way to prove they are the only people with these photos. (and they of course aren't the only ones)
  - willvarfar 8y ago
    Can Bezos get a US court to impound the photos? Something akin to the UK 'super injunction'? That would make being caught leaking the photos perjury. The stakes are so high that AMI might well not dare to do that. Its easy to imagine that Bezos, whatever he is saying publicly, is also getting excellent legal consul privately and that two can play at the games that AMI is so infamous for.
    - 420codebro 8y ago
      Nope. We have no prior restraint here.
      - Fezzik 8y ago
        All 50 States have statutes that allow for preliminary injunctions... If Bezos filed a lawsuit he could absolutely seek a court order restraining AMI from publishing the photos pending the outcome of a lawsuit. See, for example: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.40.020 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.40.020
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      Why? Because he doesn't want everyone to know that he has a penis? The kind of people who care about "celebrity gossip" will have no idea who he is, and the people who do know who he is won't care. There is no market for these photos.
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
> this is the correct way to handle such things. Yes, with conditions. Bezos himself writes, in the article we're discussing: I asked him to prioritise protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter. - emphasis mine. And that: On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake. Thus making it plain, simple, and obvious, that he recognises that having a net worth up around the US$137 billion[1] mark has it's perks. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos Edit: inconsequential grammar improvement
- pbalau 8y ago
  And? What's your point?
  - thirdsun 8y ago
    I think the user you’re asking tried to explain that not everyone has the means to handle things in such a way. Fair point, but obviously someone like Bezos should be able to make use of his resources in cases like these and I‘m sure nobody is arguing against that.
- rnvhhynr 8y ago
  Someone without that net worth won't be blackmailed by the US and Saudi governments.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    At risk of repeating myself, Bezos one words: On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake. You’re right, most people are never going to face such an adversary personally. But there are legions of other adversaries, at all sorts of levels, who are out to pray on almost anyone with a bit of money / fame.
chippy 8y ago
Imagine if the material contained morally grey stuff, like something politically incorrect. Not even illegal - just monetary support for some alt right figure or someone. Then imagine if the material was about this other woman before he got his divorce. Then imagine if the material contained actual borderline illegal stuff or something like photos of his nieces on a beach holiday. He got lucky - many many others would capitulate.
- rhizome 8y ago
  So in a nutshell, "Imagine if instead of normal pics they were of weird shit that might be illegal?" There isn't enough time in the world for me to think about that line of inquiry. "Imagine if instead of simply walking down the street you punched everybody you passed."

gumby 8y ago

Agree, good for him!

buboard 8y ago

This sounds too bad to be true , but if true i think it's how any sensible person should handle it. I mean, a dik pik who will care a month later. Did they really think that such misguided extortion would work? It really doesn't make much sense unless someone else was pushing forward this extortion

anonu 8y ago
I'm gonna guess that the National Enquirer knows what the response will be when they say "we'll release your pics". They probably weren't expecting this move by bezos

optimiz3 8y ago

Amazon could pull a CloudFlare and knock them off the internet as nationalenquirer.com seems to be hosted on AWS. My guess is Amazon/Bezos already has multiple backups of the Enquirer's digital assets for forensic purposes. https://twitter.com/ryanhuber/status/1093665718464327680 https://twitter.com/ryanhuber/status/1093665718464327680

kerng 8y ago
I'm not sure if you are joking, but that's exactly what they should not be doing. They also can't just go poke around their customer's data. That would be very unwise...
- optimiz3 8y ago
  Well come on - don't host your business on a company you plan on antagonizing. Pretty sure AWS has contract clauses that allow them to deny service or perform forensics when criminal activity is suspected, and blackmail would certainly qualify.
  - techntoke 8y ago
    Pretty sure that AWS doesn't have permission to conduct criminal investigations. Those would need to be turned over to a criminal prosecutor. It would be a pretty scary world if corporations were able to police consumer and business data whenever they "suspected" something. Talk about political hit jobs.
    - tribby 8y ago
      (I think) the parent comment is implying that you might explicitly give such permission to amazon by agreeing to their terms when purchasing service. even if that isn't the case, the amount of effort required for amazon to obtain a warrant from a magistrate judge or however they'd play it is negligible.
    - optimiz3 8y ago
      Why does it need to meet the bar of a criminal investigation? All they need to do is to tick one of the boxes in their ToS and kick them off their property. Heck, there's an entire sub-category of law colloquially known as "Amazon-law", where you hire folks who specialize in navigating the intricacies of Amazon's policies so your business doesn't get crushed: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketplace-scams-seller-court-appeal-reinstatement https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketpl... Edit: https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ TL;DR - they can do whatever they want. No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive. Prohibited activities or content include: Illegal, Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Any activities that are illegal, that violate the rights of others, or that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography, offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions, make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming. 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. Our Monitoring and Enforcement We reserve the right, but do not assume the obligation, to investigate any violation of this Policy or misuse of the Services or AWS Site.
ck425 8y ago
That would be a terrible idea. We're at a point in time where the public, politicians and the tech community itself are becoming wary of tech monopolies. Currently Amazon has avoided the brunt of it (mostly due to being consumer friendly unlike Facebook) and the scrutiny it has had, has been focused on it's retail business. Bezos booting someone off AWS would bring a ton of public scrutiny to an even more powerful monopoly, one that the public and politicians are by and large ignorant of. Plus it would (rightly) shake the tech community out of its complacency around cloud lock in and encourage us to explore solutions. (I realise there's already a lot of good work happening around this, but it's not an issue I've seen the wider industry talking about much)
skrebbel 8y ago
Aannnd in a spectacular twist to this beautiful soap opera, https://www.nationalenquirer.com https://www.nationalenquirer.com is down. Even if AWS has nothing to do with this it (unfairly) reflects extremely bad on them.
- scottmf 8y ago
  Are you in the EU?

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Yep, otherwise he'd be their hostage...do this other thing or we'll release the pics.

hackathonguy 8y ago

It's worth noting that Jeff Bezos has a lot to gain from publishing these threats. While publishing the descriptions of the photographs may sting, publishing the photos themselves would hurt a lot more. Now that he's made the accusations public, AMI could not plausibly publish the actual photos.

jjeaff 8y ago
They won't publish them. But I'll guarantee you they will anonymously leak out on the internet. There is no way to prove they are the only people with these photos. (and they of course aren't the only ones)
- willvarfar 8y ago
  Can Bezos get a US court to impound the photos? Something akin to the UK 'super injunction'? That would make being caught leaking the photos perjury. The stakes are so high that AMI might well not dare to do that. Its easy to imagine that Bezos, whatever he is saying publicly, is also getting excellent legal consul privately and that two can play at the games that AMI is so infamous for.
  - 420codebro 8y ago
    Nope. We have no prior restraint here.
    - Fezzik 8y ago
      All 50 States have statutes that allow for preliminary injunctions... If Bezos filed a lawsuit he could absolutely seek a court order restraining AMI from publishing the photos pending the outcome of a lawsuit. See, for example: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.40.020 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.40.020
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Why? Because he doesn't want everyone to know that he has a penis? The kind of people who care about "celebrity gossip" will have no idea who he is, and the people who do know who he is won't care. There is no market for these photos.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

> this is the correct way to handle such things. Yes, with conditions. Bezos himself writes, in the article we're discussing: I asked him to prioritise protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter. - emphasis mine. And that: On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake. Thus making it plain, simple, and obvious, that he recognises that having a net worth up around the US$137 billion[1] mark has it's perks. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos Edit: inconsequential grammar improvement

pbalau 8y ago
And? What's your point?
- thirdsun 8y ago
  I think the user you’re asking tried to explain that not everyone has the means to handle things in such a way. Fair point, but obviously someone like Bezos should be able to make use of his resources in cases like these and I‘m sure nobody is arguing against that.
rnvhhynr 8y ago
Someone without that net worth won't be blackmailed by the US and Saudi governments.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  At risk of repeating myself, Bezos one words: On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake. You’re right, most people are never going to face such an adversary personally. But there are legions of other adversaries, at all sorts of levels, who are out to pray on almost anyone with a bit of money / fame.

chippy 8y ago

Imagine if the material contained morally grey stuff, like something politically incorrect. Not even illegal - just monetary support for some alt right figure or someone. Then imagine if the material was about this other woman before he got his divorce. Then imagine if the material contained actual borderline illegal stuff or something like photos of his nieces on a beach holiday. He got lucky - many many others would capitulate.

rhizome 8y ago
So in a nutshell, "Imagine if instead of normal pics they were of weird shit that might be illegal?" There isn't enough time in the world for me to think about that line of inquiry. "Imagine if instead of simply walking down the street you punched everybody you passed."