6 ms·

Amazon speaks up about WikiLeaks decision

75 points by jeremyjarvis 16y ago

smoody 16y ago
sounds completely reasonable to me. i wonder if we'll see copyright symbols at the end of government cables from now on.
- badwetter 16y ago
  You're kidding right
  - carbocation 16y ago
    I don't see why the parent is being downvoted. It's reasonable to ask if the comment about US Gov't placing copyright claims on their documents is a joke. Unlike, say, Crown copyrights, the US Gov't's documents are generally not entitled to domestic copyright protection.
    - pasbesoin 16y ago
      Earlier today, I was thinking to myself that it would be -- blackly -- humorous if the Amazon action ended up being the result of a DMCA takedown.
- tptacek 16y ago
  They didn't once mention copyrights. There are other legal restrictions on publishing --- in the civil sphere, that includes trade secret law (if the information is materially relevant to your business and you take steps to protect it) and contract law (if you're bound by a confidentiality agreement). Obviously, the context of national security and state secrets provides many more ways to violate this ToS.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    I can't help but wonder whether you would have equivalent support for Amazon if they were taking down a site that was hosting classified materials leaked from Iran, China or North Korea. I suspect you'd have an issue with that.
bigethan 16y ago
I appreciate the furstrated tone of that message. Is this the only time Amazon has put out a message like this? http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:http://aws.amazon.com/message/ http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:http://aws.amazon.com/m...
- tzs 16y ago
  Off topic, but speaking of Amazon messages, there was a pretty funny press release from Amazon in 1998, consisting of the single word "Oh". Amazon had issued a press release commenting on an announcement that Barnes and Noble's acquisition of Ingram. B&N took exception to Amazon's characterization of things and made a convincing case, which prompted Amazon's contrite "Oh" response. Here are the two Amazon releases: http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000795985&EDATE= http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S... http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000796268&EDATE= http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S... I have not been able to find a copy of B&N's press release other than at paid research services, although it is at least described here: http://news.cnet.com/Booksellers-enjoy-verbal-jousting/2100-1001_3-217640.html http://news.cnet.com/Booksellers-enjoy-verbal-jousting/2100-...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ra 16y ago
The message goes beyond simply quoting ToS: "Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy." If that's not taking a position, I don't know what is.
- tptacek 16y ago
  My opinion of Amazon is improved. The position they're taking is unpopular with the nerd crowd.
  - updog 16y ago
    Huh, well my opinion of Matasano has definitely dropped. You guys aren't fans of full disclosure over there? http://users.volja.net/database/matasano.PNG http://users.volja.net/database/matasano.PNG
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Classy.
  - irl 16y ago
    > My opinion of Amazon is improved. The position they're taking is unpopular with the nerd crowd. "Nerd crowd"? This is clearly a free speech issue, with implications for EVERYONE. Amazon ostensibly doesn't trample free speech rights here because they are a non-government entity, but they had the option of standing UP for the First Amendment. That would have been something. Not doing so... just makes them another large corporation. Who even needs prior restraint when the government can lean on you behind the scenes? That's a chilling effect right there. As for harm reduction, if transparency were taken up a few notches back in 2001-2002, it might have made it impossible to lie the populace into supporting the Iraq War. I can't fault Amazon for not wanting to get on the bad side of the government, but I think that ignores the larger issue -- nobody should have to worry about hosting any documents with a legitimate free speech claim, sans a court order to remove them. I find it extremely unlikely that Amazon was NOT responding to government pressure, but let's consider that possibility: In that case, Amazon is, of its own volition, deciding it has a pro-government-censorship position, even when the government hasn't tried to do so! They are taking a political stance against material that has a compelling claim to First Amendment protections. The only pending legal case is against the alleged original leaker, not any of the publishers. Every major U.S. media outlet has published at least parts of the documents. ALL of which are classified -- the information is classified, not just the verbatim reproduction.
rdl 16y ago
While I don't object to amazon booting wikileaks, I don't think this message helps. The only message I would have posted, if I posted at all, is that we keep client customer support matters confidential to protect the privacy of our customers, and possibly not even written it in a way which confirms wikileaks was ever a customer.
blueben 16y ago
Section 105 of the Copyright Act "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
- tptacek 16y ago
  That's clever but besides the point, as Amazon didn't shut WL down over copyright violations.
  - blueben 16y ago
    Feel free to point out which rights to the content that Amazon believes Wikileaks does not have.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I pointed out several downthread.
      - blueben 16y ago
        You mentioned trade secrets, contracts, and then did some hand waving about national security and state secrets. The former two are irrelevant, and the latter two don't appear to be "content rights" as defined by the law. So my question still stands.
blueben 16y ago
Amazon has lawyers, and at least some of those lawyers must be experts in the subject of copyright. It is not credible that Amazon was unaware that Government documents are not eligible for copyright. Instead, this response appears to be an attempt to justify the decision after it was made. Interesting, for example, that Amazon does not deny Congressional pressure but simply states that reports of government inquiry prompting this action are "inaccurate".
pigbucket 16y ago
Amazon is making two claims of ToS violations: 1. "WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to [the] classified content the material" 2. Use of Wikileaks content could "cause injury to [some] person or entity" The claims have some merit and Amazon has the right to discontinue service on the basis of ToS violations. But they seem to be applying, in the first instance, the same criterion to this case as they would to ordinary cases of copyright infringements, which seems ethically weak and a little outlandish. And while the second claim is at least superficially more compelling, the standard seems unusually broad. Isn't it the case, if only trivially, that Amazon already hosts and sells a lot of content that could conceivably be used by someone, somewhere to cause injury to some person or entity? In general, is the content provider absolutely responsible for the uses to which its content is put, and does Amazon really want to be in the business of policing that? The argument, presumably, is that Wikileaks' documents constitute an egregious and specific possible cause of injury, although Amazon still seems to be blurring the distinction between "causing" and "making possible" or "enabling", and discounting the possible good that the release of classified documents can do. I think it's also worth pointing out that Wikileaks has adopted a fairly heavy hand with regard to redactions in the past months, and asked Amnesty and the Pentagon (apparently in vain) to help in that process. Some minimal context for Wikileaks' actions and the Amazon message, not all of which throws the best possible light on Wikileaks: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/wikileaks http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-redacted-documents?_s=PM:US http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wi... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks-human-rights-groups http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905743.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...
- tptacek 16y ago
  It's right there in the ToS. They didn't change for Wikileaks. 11.2. Applications and Content. You represent and warrant: (i) that you are solely responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of Your Content, including without limitation, the accuracy, security, appropriateness and completeness of Your Content and all product-related materials and descriptions; (ii) that you have the necessary rights and licenses, consents, permissions, waivers and releases to use and display Your Content;
snowmaker 16y ago
Some of the lines of Amazon's terms, at least the way they are interpreted in this message, should be concerning to other sites hosting on Amazon. For example: "that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity" Any large scale UGC site likely hosts content that might cause injury to a person or entity. This term would seem to give Amazon the right to shut down the site simply by pointing to such a piece of content. I am not actually concerned about this, since I think that in practice Amazon operates according to far less restrictive terms than these. But it is interesting to see the rights they are reserving.
JSig 16y ago
This could be a great opportunity for some US hosting provider to step in and show that it can be counted on to have a backbone and take a stand in regards to seemingly unjust takedowns like this. Maybe if a smaller company could scale to take on the wikileaks load, they might be able to earn trust and gain business from people that see the righteousness in the move.
throwawayazon 16y ago
There are MANY of us who work for Amazon who do not support the removal of WikiLeaks (or the recent book-banning thing). Both cases set off long email threads on the issue, and left the bad taste of censorship and general mistrust in our mouths. Unfortunately, there isn't much we can do. It's not like the company is commenting on it internally or taking input from its employees. Then again, which company does? This is the grim reality of working for a corporation - you are working for them and participate in all sorts of decision-making that benefits them greatly, but when it comes to things like this they make the decision for you and give a different meaning to a brand you helped build up. It's starting to feel like in a country controlled by a few politicians and the corporations funding those politicians, we have no say period :( -Disgusted Amazon Employee
- ZeroMinx 16y ago
  Quit. And let them know why you quit. Take a stand!
  - trustfundbaby 16y ago
    In this economy?
madair 16y ago
"It's all just business" <-- the unquestionable ruler of our times
- wladimir 16y ago
  What used to be the mantra of gangsters "It's nothing personal, just business", is now taken as an excuse for everything. Nothing to see here, look the other way, it just business, it's how things are run. Which is a bit sad, but being amoral is a sign of the times. But if you're amoral then be amoral on everything. For example, don't be enraged to Wikileaks about deaths supposedly (and unproven) caused by things they revealed, while ignoring all the (proven) deaths caused by wars. It's just the way things go, just business... Now go to sleep.
DjDarkman 16y ago
Ohhh Wow, Amazon is clearly not doing this because the government said so, they are just rejecting Wikileaks for the same reason. For all I know those documents could be fake, and I don't really know how did they determine that they could put the life of people in danger... This whole thing is like a death sentence without a trial, I can't really blame Amazon though, the government must be really stepping on their toes.
BonoboBoner 16y ago
"There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate." More like: We got another government inquiry that told us to state that we never got an inquiry in the first place.
mw1 16y ago
Amazon makes two claims as to why they kicked wikileaks. The first, is this portion of their TOS: "you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content" It is clear that many of their customers do not own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content they host on Amazon's servers. For instance, take tarsnap or SmugMug. They both host clients' property on Amazon servers. Now, while those companies may control some of the rights to the information they are storing , it is clear that those companies do not own nor control "all rights" to that content. SmugMug cannot legally license or resell my photos to others, for example. As for their claim that it puts people in danger, they cite not a single confirmed case where this has happened.

75 points by jeremyjarvis 16y ago

sounds completely reasonable to me. i wonder if we'll see copyright symbols at the end of government cables from now on.

badwetter 16y ago
You're kidding right
- carbocation 16y ago
  I don't see why the parent is being downvoted. It's reasonable to ask if the comment about US Gov't placing copyright claims on their documents is a joke. Unlike, say, Crown copyrights, the US Gov't's documents are generally not entitled to domestic copyright protection.
  - pasbesoin 16y ago
    Earlier today, I was thinking to myself that it would be -- blackly -- humorous if the Amazon action ended up being the result of a DMCA takedown.
tptacek 16y ago
They didn't once mention copyrights. There are other legal restrictions on publishing --- in the civil sphere, that includes trade secret law (if the information is materially relevant to your business and you take steps to protect it) and contract law (if you're bound by a confidentiality agreement). Obviously, the context of national security and state secrets provides many more ways to violate this ToS.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  I can't help but wonder whether you would have equivalent support for Amazon if they were taking down a site that was hosting classified materials leaked from Iran, China or North Korea. I suspect you'd have an issue with that.

bigethan 16y ago

I appreciate the furstrated tone of that message. Is this the only time Amazon has put out a message like this? http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:http://aws.amazon.com/message/ http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:http://aws.amazon.com/m...

tzs 16y ago
Off topic, but speaking of Amazon messages, there was a pretty funny press release from Amazon in 1998, consisting of the single word "Oh". Amazon had issued a press release commenting on an announcement that Barnes and Noble's acquisition of Ingram. B&N took exception to Amazon's characterization of things and made a convincing case, which prompted Amazon's contrite "Oh" response. Here are the two Amazon releases: http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000795985&EDATE= http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S... http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000796268&EDATE= http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S... I have not been able to find a copy of B&N's press release other than at paid research services, although it is at least described here: http://news.cnet.com/Booksellers-enjoy-verbal-jousting/2100-1001_3-217640.html http://news.cnet.com/Booksellers-enjoy-verbal-jousting/2100-...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

ra 16y ago

The message goes beyond simply quoting ToS: "Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy." If that's not taking a position, I don't know what is.

tptacek 16y ago
My opinion of Amazon is improved. The position they're taking is unpopular with the nerd crowd.
- updog 16y ago
  Huh, well my opinion of Matasano has definitely dropped. You guys aren't fans of full disclosure over there? http://users.volja.net/database/matasano.PNG http://users.volja.net/database/matasano.PNG
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Classy.
- irl 16y ago
  > My opinion of Amazon is improved. The position they're taking is unpopular with the nerd crowd. "Nerd crowd"? This is clearly a free speech issue, with implications for EVERYONE. Amazon ostensibly doesn't trample free speech rights here because they are a non-government entity, but they had the option of standing UP for the First Amendment. That would have been something. Not doing so... just makes them another large corporation. Who even needs prior restraint when the government can lean on you behind the scenes? That's a chilling effect right there. As for harm reduction, if transparency were taken up a few notches back in 2001-2002, it might have made it impossible to lie the populace into supporting the Iraq War. I can't fault Amazon for not wanting to get on the bad side of the government, but I think that ignores the larger issue -- nobody should have to worry about hosting any documents with a legitimate free speech claim, sans a court order to remove them. I find it extremely unlikely that Amazon was NOT responding to government pressure, but let's consider that possibility: In that case, Amazon is, of its own volition, deciding it has a pro-government-censorship position, even when the government hasn't tried to do so! They are taking a political stance against material that has a compelling claim to First Amendment protections. The only pending legal case is against the alleged original leaker, not any of the publishers. Every major U.S. media outlet has published at least parts of the documents. ALL of which are classified -- the information is classified, not just the verbatim reproduction.

rdl 16y ago

While I don't object to amazon booting wikileaks, I don't think this message helps. The only message I would have posted, if I posted at all, is that we keep client customer support matters confidential to protect the privacy of our customers, and possibly not even written it in a way which confirms wikileaks was ever a customer.

blueben 16y ago

Section 105 of the Copyright Act "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

tptacek 16y ago
That's clever but besides the point, as Amazon didn't shut WL down over copyright violations.
- blueben 16y ago
  Feel free to point out which rights to the content that Amazon believes Wikileaks does not have.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I pointed out several downthread.
    - blueben 16y ago
      You mentioned trade secrets, contracts, and then did some hand waving about national security and state secrets. The former two are irrelevant, and the latter two don't appear to be "content rights" as defined by the law. So my question still stands.

blueben 16y ago

Amazon has lawyers, and at least some of those lawyers must be experts in the subject of copyright. It is not credible that Amazon was unaware that Government documents are not eligible for copyright. Instead, this response appears to be an attempt to justify the decision after it was made. Interesting, for example, that Amazon does not deny Congressional pressure but simply states that reports of government inquiry prompting this action are "inaccurate".

pigbucket 16y ago

Amazon is making two claims of ToS violations: 1. "WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to [the] classified content the material" 2. Use of Wikileaks content could "cause injury to [some] person or entity" The claims have some merit and Amazon has the right to discontinue service on the basis of ToS violations. But they seem to be applying, in the first instance, the same criterion to this case as they would to ordinary cases of copyright infringements, which seems ethically weak and a little outlandish. And while the second claim is at least superficially more compelling, the standard seems unusually broad. Isn't it the case, if only trivially, that Amazon already hosts and sells a lot of content that could conceivably be used by someone, somewhere to cause injury to some person or entity? In general, is the content provider absolutely responsible for the uses to which its content is put, and does Amazon really want to be in the business of policing that? The argument, presumably, is that Wikileaks' documents constitute an egregious and specific possible cause of injury, although Amazon still seems to be blurring the distinction between "causing" and "making possible" or "enabling", and discounting the possible good that the release of classified documents can do. I think it's also worth pointing out that Wikileaks has adopted a fairly heavy hand with regard to redactions in the past months, and asked Amnesty and the Pentagon (apparently in vain) to help in that process. Some minimal context for Wikileaks' actions and the Amazon message, not all of which throws the best possible light on Wikileaks: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/wikileaks http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-redacted-documents?_s=PM:US http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wi... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks-human-rights-groups http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905743.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...

tptacek 16y ago
It's right there in the ToS. They didn't change for Wikileaks. 11.2. Applications and Content. You represent and warrant: (i) that you are solely responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of Your Content, including without limitation, the accuracy, security, appropriateness and completeness of Your Content and all product-related materials and descriptions; (ii) that you have the necessary rights and licenses, consents, permissions, waivers and releases to use and display Your Content;

snowmaker 16y ago

Some of the lines of Amazon's terms, at least the way they are interpreted in this message, should be concerning to other sites hosting on Amazon. For example: "that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity" Any large scale UGC site likely hosts content that might cause injury to a person or entity. This term would seem to give Amazon the right to shut down the site simply by pointing to such a piece of content. I am not actually concerned about this, since I think that in practice Amazon operates according to far less restrictive terms than these. But it is interesting to see the rights they are reserving.

JSig 16y ago

This could be a great opportunity for some US hosting provider to step in and show that it can be counted on to have a backbone and take a stand in regards to seemingly unjust takedowns like this. Maybe if a smaller company could scale to take on the wikileaks load, they might be able to earn trust and gain business from people that see the righteousness in the move.

throwawayazon 16y ago

There are MANY of us who work for Amazon who do not support the removal of WikiLeaks (or the recent book-banning thing). Both cases set off long email threads on the issue, and left the bad taste of censorship and general mistrust in our mouths. Unfortunately, there isn't much we can do. It's not like the company is commenting on it internally or taking input from its employees. Then again, which company does? This is the grim reality of working for a corporation - you are working for them and participate in all sorts of decision-making that benefits them greatly, but when it comes to things like this they make the decision for you and give a different meaning to a brand you helped build up. It's starting to feel like in a country controlled by a few politicians and the corporations funding those politicians, we have no say period :( -Disgusted Amazon Employee

ZeroMinx 16y ago
Quit. And let them know why you quit. Take a stand!
- trustfundbaby 16y ago
  In this economy?

madair 16y ago

"It's all just business" <-- the unquestionable ruler of our times

wladimir 16y ago
What used to be the mantra of gangsters "It's nothing personal, just business", is now taken as an excuse for everything. Nothing to see here, look the other way, it just business, it's how things are run. Which is a bit sad, but being amoral is a sign of the times. But if you're amoral then be amoral on everything. For example, don't be enraged to Wikileaks about deaths supposedly (and unproven) caused by things they revealed, while ignoring all the (proven) deaths caused by wars. It's just the way things go, just business... Now go to sleep.

DjDarkman 16y ago

Ohhh Wow, Amazon is clearly not doing this because the government said so, they are just rejecting Wikileaks for the same reason. For all I know those documents could be fake, and I don't really know how did they determine that they could put the life of people in danger... This whole thing is like a death sentence without a trial, I can't really blame Amazon though, the government must be really stepping on their toes.

BonoboBoner 16y ago

"There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate." More like: We got another government inquiry that told us to state that we never got an inquiry in the first place.

mw1 16y ago

Amazon makes two claims as to why they kicked wikileaks. The first, is this portion of their TOS: "you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content" It is clear that many of their customers do not own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content they host on Amazon's servers. For instance, take tarsnap or SmugMug. They both host clients' property on Amazon servers. Now, while those companies may control some of the rights to the information they are storing , it is clear that those companies do not own nor control "all rights" to that content. SmugMug cannot legally license or resell my photos to others, for example. As for their claim that it puts people in danger, they cite not a single confirmed case where this has happened.