3 ms·
In my opinion one the critical issues is that AWS doesn't require a relationship to start hosting. I know amzn mentioned that and it might sound like a lame jus
by trotsky 16y ago
In my opinion one the critical issues is that AWS doesn't require a relationship to start hosting. I know amzn mentioned that and it might sound like a lame justification to you, but I think it's pretty reasonable.
Almost any competing service (besides app engine) in this space would have required a signed contract and contact with an account rep. How many of these [US based] hosting providers would agree to a contract with wikileaks given that distributing classified US documents on US servers by a US business is likely a crime?
I'd expect very few. At the very maximum, something like 1 in 10. But we're not calling for boycotts of rackspace, right? The only reason amzn is taking heat for this decision is that they turned them down a few days after the service switched instead of a few days before. Otherwise folks might as well be boycotting most of the industry.
Isn't the right to choose who to do business with at least close to the same level as the right to free speech? I've refused to sign a contract with a guy simply because he was a dick, with no other concrete reason. Surely amzn had more cause than this.
Also, I think a lot of people are overestimating their own likely actions in this case. If the white house and senate staffers are calling you all day asking/telling you to do something how sure are you that you'd be manning up and taking a stand on it? Hell, how many of you would stand up to a Jobs/Schmidt/Zuckerberg call?
- thecoffman 16y agoMaybe my facts are wrong - if so please feel free to point me in the right direction; but I thought it was pretty firmly established that while leaking classified material was certainly illegal distributing it after the leak was not. Distributors of leaked material are protected - otherwise the New York Times, Washington Post etc would all be participating in illegal activities. AFAIK the only point of ambiguity with respect to wikileak's legal status is the fact that they "encourage" people to commit illegal activities.
- trotsky 16y agoI think you are probably right, or at least I am willing to admit that you sound like you know better than I do. I had the impression that there was a distinction being drawn between distributing the documents themselves, and disseminating the information contained within - and that was why you never saw the full documents in the papers and only abstracts. I can't find any evidence of that being true, though, now that I've looked.
- thecoffman 16y agoYa, I'm certainly no expert either - this is just based upon what I've read. I think it falls under the same class of protection as the Pentagon Papers did. What Ellsberg did was illegal - but the New York Times wasn't prosecuted for publishing the information. However the New York Times did only publish excerpts like you're saying and not the full documents so maybe there is something to what you're saying? The full documents were not made public until Mike Gravel published them in the proceedings of the Senate using an interesting legal loophole.