4 ms·

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

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;
- cma 16y ago
  So if Amazon had hosted the NYT during the Pentagon Papers releases, they would have pulled them under that TOS? Not likely; it hasn't been legally established that Wikileaks doesn't have the right to post what they are posting, and in fact the NYT is posting some of the same stuff this time around.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful! The only thing that was settled was the unconstitutionality of prior restraint --- government action to preempt a publication they felt was unlawful.
    - irl 16y ago
      > The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful! "Proved" lawful? The burden of proof is not on the speaker. The Espionage Act was just another incarnation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Thomas Jefferson wrote so passionately against. The 1917 Espionage Act was in fact extended by the 1918 Sedition act. [It] prohibited many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States...or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 "A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918) in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent." Curb antiwar dissent. How much more Orwellian can you get? http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html "Much of the Act's enforcement was left to the discretion of local United States Attorneys, so enforcement varied widely. For example, Socialist Kate Richards O'Hare gave the same speech in several states, but was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 5 years for delivering her speech in North Dakota." (Wikipedia) "The Act was ruled constitutional in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 in 1919. Schenck, an anti-war Socialist, had been convicted of violating the Act when he sent anti-draft pamphlets to men eligible for the draft." (Wikipedia) Note this was prior to the Supreme Court's rulings expanding their interpretation of free speech rights. As for the Pentagon Papers: "The Supreme Court struck down the injunctions. However, the decision was fragmented, with nine separate opinions being filed in the case. It was not clear at the time what the effect would be on future prior restraint cases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint 9 separate opinions is a decent indicator you've got an unconstitutional law. Of course, Jefferson didn't need ANY supreme court justices in order to know a Sedition Act is unconstitutional on its face, and neither should you.
tzs 16y ago
> Amazon is making two claims of ToS violations More accurately, they claimed several, and gave two examples. I don't think those two were meant to be an exhaustive list. For instance, content that is invasive of privacy is not allowed, and that would cover many of the items.

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;

cma 16y ago
So if Amazon had hosted the NYT during the Pentagon Papers releases, they would have pulled them under that TOS? Not likely; it hasn't been legally established that Wikileaks doesn't have the right to post what they are posting, and in fact the NYT is posting some of the same stuff this time around.
- tptacek 16y ago
  The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful! The only thing that was settled was the unconstitutionality of prior restraint --- government action to preempt a publication they felt was unlawful.
  - irl 16y ago
    > The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful! "Proved" lawful? The burden of proof is not on the speaker. The Espionage Act was just another incarnation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Thomas Jefferson wrote so passionately against. The 1917 Espionage Act was in fact extended by the 1918 Sedition act. [It] prohibited many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States...or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 "A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918) in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent." Curb antiwar dissent. How much more Orwellian can you get? http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html "Much of the Act's enforcement was left to the discretion of local United States Attorneys, so enforcement varied widely. For example, Socialist Kate Richards O'Hare gave the same speech in several states, but was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 5 years for delivering her speech in North Dakota." (Wikipedia) "The Act was ruled constitutional in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 in 1919. Schenck, an anti-war Socialist, had been convicted of violating the Act when he sent anti-draft pamphlets to men eligible for the draft." (Wikipedia) Note this was prior to the Supreme Court's rulings expanding their interpretation of free speech rights. As for the Pentagon Papers: "The Supreme Court struck down the injunctions. However, the decision was fragmented, with nine separate opinions being filed in the case. It was not clear at the time what the effect would be on future prior restraint cases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint 9 separate opinions is a decent indicator you've got an unconstitutional law. Of course, Jefferson didn't need ANY supreme court justices in order to know a Sedition Act is unconstitutional on its face, and neither should you.

tzs 16y ago

> Amazon is making two claims of ToS violations More accurately, they claimed several, and gave two examples. I don't think those two were meant to be an exhaustive list. For instance, content that is invasive of privacy is not allowed, and that would cover many of the items.