4 ms·

This was a bad move on Amazon's part. We expect Joe Lieberman to be a horror. But doesn't this put fear into cloud service users that their stuff can be yanke

This was a bad move on Amazon's part. We expect Joe Lieberman to be a horror. But doesn't this put fear into cloud service users that their stuff can be yanked at any time? Kinda of a Godaddy/nodaddy type situation? (I use both Amazon (EC2) and Godaddy (domains) products) Granted this was a pretty big case but I think situations like this either affirm or enhance trust in a third party platform/provider. If Amazon had relented and kept hosting, it would have spoke volumes on customer dedication. Of course they probably didn't like the DDoS attacks constantly. It wasn't wikileaks that did the actions or stole the information. They just posted it. In this day and age of tepid media for profit and intertwined news organizations with gov't/business, real news like wikileaks is needed. This is an attack on the messenger.

nodata 16y ago
People who care can vote with their cash. I doubt many will.
potatolicious 16y ago
Note: I generally agree with the leaking of relevant government data to expose abuses. > "But doesn't this put fear into cloud service users that their stuff can be yanked at any time?" Not really. Illegal content already puts you at risk of getting yanked at any time. If you were hosting pirated material or anything else that is illegal in the jurisdiction of the host, it can be yanked. This is not a judgment on whether or not said content ought to be illegal, but rather a simple statement that nothing has changed. That being said, I am uncomfortable with this sort of thing having no set procedure, and being instigated/pressured upon by government officials. We have a clear process for DMCA takedowns, and likewise a request to remove illegal information needs to come from law enforcement within their jurisdiction, and not from self-interested politicians.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Do we have a clear declaration that this content is illegal? I wasn't aware we did.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    You're right. I've always been under the impression that dissemination of classified material is illegal as part of the Espionage Act. But a quick jaunt over Wikipedia is inconclusive. It seems the legality of these leaks is a lot less cut and dry than I thought.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      If only we had courts and judges to handle this sort of thing! The government could file a complaint, a team of legal experts could take a look at the evidence, Wikileaks could present materials and arguments in their defense, and a final decision could be made. If Wikileaks' content was ruled illegal, then this court could send Amazon a letter asking them to remove the content. Amazon could, of course, appeal. Once the appeals process was exhausted, then they could be compelled to remove the offending material. (Not all of it, of course; only the material that the court deems "illegal", whatever that means.) The whole process could be open and transparent, and nobody would have any grounds to complain or yell "conspiracy!" Oh yeah, but they're terrorists, so they don't deserve freedom. Much better to punish them in private, so nobody knows what is and is not illegal. Then when the government doesn't like you, they can take whatever action they want against you, with no oversight! That would be a much better system! Potatolicious, you could say.
  - stonemetal 16y ago
    They at least have copyright infringement, and could probably get a big enough fine to shut down wikileaks.
    - jackvalentine 16y ago
      US (federal) Government documents are not entitled to copyright protection within America. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105
      - stonemetal 16y ago
- megablast 16y ago
  The stuff hosted by wikileaks is not illegal. A lot of people would like it to be, but it is not. There have been a number of articles yesterday going into this in great depth.
  - fleitz 16y ago
    Ultimately 9 Justices in the Supreme Court determine that. If Gonzales v. Raich or Kelo v. City of New London are any indication I'm fairly sure they can come up with the legal gymnastics required to make these documents illegal given the current law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      That is an eminent domain case and a fungible goods case. I'd go for this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_vs_Ferguson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_vs_Ferguson
benatkin 16y ago
To me when someone makes a bad move, it's when it hurts their efforts, whether their efforts are for the greater good, or not. So unless this is hurting Amazon's bottom line or the goals of the executives, I wouldn't call it a bad move. Your comment doesn't seem to address that. I'm chalking this one up as an evil move, but not necessarily a bad move for them.
fleitz 16y ago
No, it was a brilliant move on Amazon's part. Most of the populace understands wikileaks to be bad, engaged in killing soldiers, letting terrorists escape, etc. Most of the populace thinks that national secrets are a good idea. When you can lose a lot of business, be harassed by the US Senate, etc, it's probably a good idea to let a single customer go. Yes lots of nerds and those concerned about liberty will be upset. However, when we want to make a purchase online or host some infrastructure we'll probably still use Amazon.
- defroost 16y ago
  > Most of the populace understands wikileaks to be bad, engaged in killing soldiers, letting terrorists escape, etc. We do? Huh? Amazon, typical of any big corporation caved in an effort to protect their number on priority: the bottom line. Cowards.
  - nhangen 16y ago
    What does Amazon have to gain from hosting the files? They are not a political organization...they are a business. Businesses make decisions based on business principles. It's not that tough to understand.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  Most of the populace understands wikileaks to be bad, engaged in killing soldiers, letting terrorists escape, etc. So you're saying most of the populace is woefully ill informed? Agreed.

nodata 16y ago

People who care can vote with their cash. I doubt many will.

potatolicious 16y ago

Note: I generally agree with the leaking of relevant government data to expose abuses. > "But doesn't this put fear into cloud service users that their stuff can be yanked at any time?" Not really. Illegal content already puts you at risk of getting yanked at any time. If you were hosting pirated material or anything else that is illegal in the jurisdiction of the host, it can be yanked. This is not a judgment on whether or not said content ought to be illegal, but rather a simple statement that nothing has changed. That being said, I am uncomfortable with this sort of thing having no set procedure, and being instigated/pressured upon by government officials. We have a clear process for DMCA takedowns, and likewise a request to remove illegal information needs to come from law enforcement within their jurisdiction, and not from self-interested politicians.

michaelchisari 16y ago
Do we have a clear declaration that this content is illegal? I wasn't aware we did.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  You're right. I've always been under the impression that dissemination of classified material is illegal as part of the Espionage Act. But a quick jaunt over Wikipedia is inconclusive. It seems the legality of these leaks is a lot less cut and dry than I thought.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    If only we had courts and judges to handle this sort of thing! The government could file a complaint, a team of legal experts could take a look at the evidence, Wikileaks could present materials and arguments in their defense, and a final decision could be made. If Wikileaks' content was ruled illegal, then this court could send Amazon a letter asking them to remove the content. Amazon could, of course, appeal. Once the appeals process was exhausted, then they could be compelled to remove the offending material. (Not all of it, of course; only the material that the court deems "illegal", whatever that means.) The whole process could be open and transparent, and nobody would have any grounds to complain or yell "conspiracy!" Oh yeah, but they're terrorists, so they don't deserve freedom. Much better to punish them in private, so nobody knows what is and is not illegal. Then when the government doesn't like you, they can take whatever action they want against you, with no oversight! That would be a much better system! Potatolicious, you could say.
- stonemetal 16y ago
  They at least have copyright infringement, and could probably get a big enough fine to shut down wikileaks.
  - jackvalentine 16y ago
    US (federal) Government documents are not entitled to copyright protection within America. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105
    - stonemetal 16y ago
megablast 16y ago
The stuff hosted by wikileaks is not illegal. A lot of people would like it to be, but it is not. There have been a number of articles yesterday going into this in great depth.
- fleitz 16y ago
  Ultimately 9 Justices in the Supreme Court determine that. If Gonzales v. Raich or Kelo v. City of New London are any indication I'm fairly sure they can come up with the legal gymnastics required to make these documents illegal given the current law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    That is an eminent domain case and a fungible goods case. I'd go for this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_vs_Ferguson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_vs_Ferguson

benatkin 16y ago

To me when someone makes a bad move, it's when it hurts their efforts, whether their efforts are for the greater good, or not. So unless this is hurting Amazon's bottom line or the goals of the executives, I wouldn't call it a bad move. Your comment doesn't seem to address that. I'm chalking this one up as an evil move, but not necessarily a bad move for them.

fleitz 16y ago

No, it was a brilliant move on Amazon's part. Most of the populace understands wikileaks to be bad, engaged in killing soldiers, letting terrorists escape, etc. Most of the populace thinks that national secrets are a good idea. When you can lose a lot of business, be harassed by the US Senate, etc, it's probably a good idea to let a single customer go. Yes lots of nerds and those concerned about liberty will be upset. However, when we want to make a purchase online or host some infrastructure we'll probably still use Amazon.

defroost 16y ago
> Most of the populace understands wikileaks to be bad, engaged in killing soldiers, letting terrorists escape, etc. We do? Huh? Amazon, typical of any big corporation caved in an effort to protect their number on priority: the bottom line. Cowards.
- nhangen 16y ago
  What does Amazon have to gain from hosting the files? They are not a political organization...they are a business. Businesses make decisions based on business principles. It's not that tough to understand.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
Most of the populace understands wikileaks to be bad, engaged in killing soldiers, letting terrorists escape, etc. So you're saying most of the populace is woefully ill informed? Agreed.