Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Cloud Not Big Enough For Feds and WikiLeaks

theodp writes "Dave Winer was already upset that Amazon Web Services (AWS) pulled the plug on WikiLeaks for posting classified US government documents. So, he wasn't exactly thrilled to receive email three weeks later from an AWS PR flack boasting that 'the US federal government continues to be one of our fastest growing customer segments.' Writes Winer: 'It makes perfect sense that the US government is a big customer of Amazon's web services. It also makes perfect sense that Amazon wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize that business. There might not have even been a phone call, it might not have been necessary.' Amazon, which wowed the White House with its ability to scale video slideshow site Animoto, was able to get its foot in the Federal door as a Recovery.gov redesign subcontractor."

204 comments

  1. The bottom line of business is to make money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    News at 11!

    1. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Toe,+The · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ...and the bottom line of government is to make money for business.

      Democracy is for everyone who can afford it.

    2. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Ismellpoop · · Score: 2

      ...and the bottom line of government is to make money for business.
      I think their main motivation is to make money for themselves.

    3. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      I think their main motivation is to make money for themselves.

      Take a look at the salaries of the top people in government, from the President on down, and compare it to executive pay in major corporations. If you want to get rich, there are a hell of a lot more direct ways to do it than running for office.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      really?

      in both scenarios you're missing something: those people tend to have extra money coming in from extra sources.

      think a CEO is just paid in salary? He's usually paid in shares, free benefits, extra vacation time, etc, all these things add up to extra money.

      Think a president is just paid in salary? He's paid in money for any business which he owns any portion of no matter how trivial, and also via anonymous donations from the party, and also via the party paying for everything for him. You don't think 400k a year covers all of his travel, do you? You don't think he pays for his own secret service cover and/or escorts, do you?

      No, in both situations it's the bottom line that pays for it.

    5. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Salaries aren't the main incentive in executive pay in major corporations. Ditto for Presidents.

      On the other hand, I don't know many Presidents or Congressmen who retired to poverty.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      That's if you're only counting above-the-table pay and monetary benefits. Under-the-table and non-monetarily they probably do quite well. Why else would individuals willingly pay out millions of their own money to run a campaign that may not work?

      If you say civic duty I've got a bridge or two to sell you.

    7. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by pthreadunixman · · Score: 1

      Look everyone. He shutdown the debate about whether we should use Amazon's services by pointing out an obvious bias about a business entity.

    8. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      According to Henry Ford, the two most valuable assets of a company did not appear at the bottom line : it was a company's reputation and the employees that had the know-how. A loss of reputation can have a very direct impact on the bottom-line. Even a 100% egoistical company should think twice before leaving the popular "neutral-we-love-free-speech" costume.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

      Why else would individuals willingly pay out millions of their own money to run a campaign that may not work?

      Why else? A thirst for power. That's more than worth the money to a lot of people.

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    10. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      That'd be under the non-monetary portion.

    11. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Shakrai · · Score: 0

      Take a look at the salaries of the top people in government, from the President on down, and compare it to executive pay in major corporations.

      You have a good point for the "top people" in Government. Now take a look at the line workers in Government vs. private industry. It's not even close. Public sector employees receive compensation that their private sector counterparts can only dream of.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

      Quite right. I should've read your post more carefully.

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    13. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Fine, add up all the money they get from both salary and non-salary sources, and you'll still find that the President, cabinet members, Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court Justices still make a lot less than executives of major corporations. They're making good money, to be sure, but nothing like what's available at the C*O level. Again, if you want to get really rich, running for office isn't the way to do it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    14. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Which was, in fact, my point in the first place. The poster I was replying to said "I think their main motivation is to make money for themselves," and I was simply pointing out that money, in and of itself, is a pretty lousy motivation for running for office, because there are much easier and more direct routes toward wealth. That's all. Obviously the non-monetary rewards are worth it in a lot of people's minds ... and if you say "monetary and non-monetary" then you've covered every possible motivation for doing anything in the world.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      That's if you're only counting above-the-table pay and monetary benefits. Under-the-table and non-monetarily they probably do quite well

      If Democrats or Republicans were taking money under the table politicians from the other party who be howling loudly, especially those serving their first term who ran on a platform of cleaning Washington. Tea Partiers, many who ran against the Republican establishment but who helped Republicans take control of the House and gained senate seats will surely be howling loudly come January. Just look at what happened to Rep Charlie Rangel, who has served 20 terms in office and is a Korean War hero. He was found guilty of 11 ethics violations.

      Why else would individuals willingly pay out millions of their own money to run a campaign that may not work?

      Because they believe in something. There are some people who aren't greedy and only think of themselves. I'm pretty cynical about politics but I admit not everyone who runs for office only does it for money.

      Falcon

    16. Re:The bottom line of business is to make money... by kmoser · · Score: 1

      The real payoff comes after their tenure in office, when they revert to the private sector and rake in the big bucks through speaking engagements, book deals, etc.

  2. Should anybody really be supprised... by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That a business does what it thinks is good for its bottom line? On one hand we have an organization that is trying to bring down civilization as we know it and on the other, we have capitalism as usual. Think I will side with Amazon's decision on this one. WikiLeaks may think they are trying to expose corruption, but so far, I haven't seen the corruption they think exists.

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    1. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point of Wikileaks' leaks of our government and military documents. It's not entirely about finding corruption. They're showing us everything we, as U.S. citizens, should be entitled to knowing.

    2. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I haven't seen the corruption they think exists.

      You are blind. Here is a short list of things you should be able to see, but cannot.

      • United States trained Iraqi torture brigade (google: iraqi wolf brigade)
      • Swedish judicial system is a puppet that accepts instruction from United States (google: pirate bay us cables)
      • United States diplomats tasked with collecting DNA samples (among other things) from their foreign counter-parts (google: us cables dna)
      • United States partaking in secret military action and lying to American and Yemenese citizens about it (google: us cables yemen)
      • Everything else I've forgotten about (this is an extemporaneously generated list, afterall)
      • Everything that hasn't yet been released (the vast majority of the leaked cables)

      If you have trouble with the google (most blind people do), let me know and I'll spend a bunch of my time collecting links, analyzing them, distilling information, and chewing your food for you.

    3. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 1

      The wikileaks documents showed Hillary was stealing credit card numbers from foreign diplomats
      Is that not corruption?
      WikiLeaks also shows the American and European governments used money, threats, secrecy, and even espionage to advance their 'climate' agenda at the COP15 global-warming summit in Copenhagen last year.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    4. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      ...Hillary was stealing credit card numbers from foreign diplomats...

      What? Campaign season is just around the corner. You think she can afford all those hats on her salary?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you haven't "seen" the corruption that exists by now then I doubt anyone mentioning it to you will sway you:

      -Shoving USA-style IP laws onto Spain
      -Bribing, threatening, and then withholding millions in aid to Ecuador and Bolivia so they'd agree to the Copenhagen Accord. But Saudi Arabia gets a free pass, because we need their oil.
      -At the urging of the Afghan Government, the US State Dept pressured The Washington Post into watering down a story about security contractor DynCorp (who were commissioned to train the Afghan police forces), funded by USA taxpayers, bought young male sex slaves for Afghan cops in a "batca bazzi" party. It's a
      -Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai, is on the CIA payroll and a major drug dealer.
      -The US Government lied to the American people about its activities in Yemen.
      -Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered American diplomats to collect information on foreign officials and diplomats
      -They're moving prisoners out of Guantanamo to foreign prisons.
      -Under reporting deaths in Afghanistan. It's not going nearly as well as they've said it has. That's lying to the American people.
      -Diplomats know that the Saudi Arabians are the primary donors to Al-Queada. Aren't they an ally? Isn't our "strong military presence" in the area supposed to stop that sort of thing?
      -The CIA pressured Spain into dropping investigations into the killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops.
      -Covering up the Associated Press journalists and innocent bystanders that were all killed by a US helicopter gunfire.

      Plus there's plenty of examples of the USA knowing that others are doing blatantly illegal things, like
      The Shell Oil Company claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to every movement of politicians. Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

      This is just a small amount of what has been exposed. No corruption please....

    6. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      You are also blind. Releasing documents that should be released is one thing. What Wikileaks did though was release the stuff that should have been released and much, much more. Releasing shit that needed to stay secret is not reporting. I think that the internet and pirate hackers getting info the people need to know is wonderful. Julian is a whiny little anti american anti capitalist bitch who is just out to destroy, He has no integrity at all. Fuck him.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Releasing shit that needed to stay secret is not reporting.

      Such as? I'd rather take my chances than continue on as we are now.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      But, what about all of those unnamed leaks that should have stayed secret? I think the much better solution would be for the government to tell the people when it has been naughty.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    9. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      What Wikileaks did though was release the stuff that should have been released and much, much more.

      What is some of this "much, much more" you're referring to? Be specific.

      Releasing shit that needed to stay secret is not reporting.

      Which is exactly the argument that has always been used against reporters who release information that the government finds embarrassing. You must be very proud of yourself, keeping company with the likes of Harding and Nixon.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    10. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that wikileaks is a good thing, but have you played Cablegate: The Game? Try it.
      There's a lot of bullcrap in those documents all right. Sometimes I wonder why those diplomat guys even bother putting it on paper.

    11. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Ex+Machina · · Score: 1

      WikiLeaks may think they are trying to expose corruption, but so far, I haven't seen the corruption they think exists.

      How about the top story there right now?

      Confidential documents related to the World Health Organization Expert Working Group on innovative financing for research and development surfaced today, revealing the group's thinking as well as pharmaceutical industry thinking about the WHO process. The documents immediately raised concern about possible undue access to the process by industry; the WHO told Intellectual Property Watch the industry group was not supposed to have the documents.

    12. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      So releasing the documents of the secret communications between the US and the Saudis that they want Irans nuclear program taken out is a good thing? No need for one country to be able to discuss things with us in private. No good can come of it.

      I am sure you have already heard of this particular one. You just choose to write it off or ignore it. Just because an organization dose some things you agree with is no reason to forgive them everything.

      So. Are you ignorant of the facts or just a fool?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    13. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      Dude, just drop the "-H" from you handle.

      Business does what it thinks is good for its bottom line not national interest? On one hand we have an organization that is a critical part to sustaining our civilization with some truth (politicians are mouthy fools) as we have never been allowed to know it and on the other, we have pseudo-capitalism as usual ignoring The USA Constitution for profits. Think I will consider it a piss-poor decision on this one. WikiLeaks does not think they are trying to report and leave the thinking up to the citizens of a democracy. So far, I have seen the corruption of freedoms for avoiding embarrassment and lies that hurt USA security.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    14. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by icebike · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the corruption they think exists.

      You are blind. Here is a short list of things you should be able to see, but cannot.

      • United States trained Iraqi torture brigade (google: iraqi wolf brigade)
      • Swedish judicial system is a puppet that accepts instruction from United States (google: pirate bay us cables)
      • United States diplomats tasked with collecting DNA samples (among other things) from their foreign counter-parts (google: us cables dna)
      • United States partaking in secret military action and lying to American and Yemenese citizens about it (google: us cables yemen)
      • Everything else I've forgotten about (this is an extemporaneously generated list, afterall)
      • Everything that hasn't yet been released (the vast majority of the leaked cables)

      If you have trouble with the google (most blind people do), let me know and I'll spend a bunch of my time collecting links, analyzing them, distilling information, and chewing your food for you.

      What part of your pathetic list constitutes corruption?

      Every item on your silly list looks like looking after American interests to me.
      Do you thing other countries DON'T do these things?

      Show me the cables about lining their own pockets with huge sums of money. Then we can talk corruption.

      Until then, pretty much everyone yawned and the gossip in the cables. Even Al Jazeera yawned.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but so far, I haven't seen the corruption they think exists

      Huh, maybe you are an idiot and you still don't know it.

      Consider that. Think hard.

    16. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like they are doing now on their own? =p

    17. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by chargersfan420 · · Score: 1

      WikiLeaks may think they are trying to expose corruption, but so far, I haven't seen the corruption they think exists.

      Certainly this is an arguable point, as shown by the many replies you received to this comment. However, I'd like to point out something else - If we were to shut down WikiLeaks now (for failing to expose corruption?) then what do we do when we find corruption and there's no WikiLeaks to post it to?

    18. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every item on your silly list looks like looking after American interests to me

      American interests.. I love that term. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

    19. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 0

      YOU FUCKING FAGGOT RETARD, You just don't get it, do you? I suspect that you never will. I am truly having trouble wrapping mind around how much of an ass you are.

    20. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Documents that should be released according to whom? You? The President? Leon Panetta? The New York Times?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    21. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      I am guessing that you many issues with your mind.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    22. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      What shit did Wikileaks release that needed to stay secret? Seriously. I need examples. Because otherwise you're full of shit. I haven't seen one thing Wikileaks released that I didn't think I should know about as a citizen of the US.

    23. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're clearly a government shill.

    24. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Lols

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    25. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    26. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Releasing shit that needed to stay secret is not reporting.

      Who gets to decide "what needs to stay secret"? Because after Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, and more recently the crap with DynCorp in Afghanistan, I don't think the government's making very good decisions in the matter.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    27. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Oh, right. Blame Wikileaks, not Mugabe.

    28. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      While I understand your point that dose not mean there is nothing that should not be released.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    29. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      We do blame Mugabe for being an evil tyrant. However, had Wikileaks not posted that info Mugabe wouldn't have been able to use it to commit more evil. It goes back to that whole journalistic integrity thing. If your actions cause somebody to be unlawfully imprisoned, then perhaps your actions need closer scrutiny.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    30. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      WikiLeaks may think they are trying to expose corruption, but so far, I haven't seen the corruption they think exists.

      Certainly this is an arguable point, as shown by the many replies you received to this comment. However, I'd like to point out something else - If we were to shut down WikiLeaks now (for failing to expose corruption?) then what do we do when we find corruption and there's no WikiLeaks to post it to?

      How about reporting it to the FBI. There is this thing called the whistle-blower protection act of 1989 that allows those who see wrongdoing to report it. Not to the news media, but to the appropriate authorities. Had Pfc Manning taking what he thought was wrongdoing by the government to the FBI, he wouldn't be in the pile of Sh!t he is in now. The FBI have the clearance to sort through the documentation and pick out any evidence to be used without releasing documentation that could jeopardize ongoing diplomatic relations. They do a pretty good job at prosecuting corrupt individuals if they have the evidence to back it up. So, no, we don't need Wikileaks to exist for exposing corruption.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    31. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      On one hand we have an organization that is trying to bring down civilization

      So, trying to open government is destroying civilization?. No, people who hide behind secrecy is who's destroying society.

      WikiLeaks may think they are trying to expose corruption, but so far, I haven't seen the corruption they think exists.

      As a citizen and voter I have the right to know what my government is doing. Maybe you don't want to but then you're no better than the Germans who let the NAZI get away with their crimes.

      Falcon

    32. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attitudes like yours astound me. You believe that taking bribes is the only form of governmental corruption? Please, please try to understand how wrong that is. Corruption occurs any time an official uses the power they've been granted in some way that they aren't meant to and every time they overreach their authority. For example, when a government official makes a "recommendation" that some friend or relative of theirs be given a job in, for example, the probation department (as recently has been demonstrated in Massachusetts). Or whenever any authority tortures a suspect to get information. Or whenever higher-ups authorize torture. Or illegal wiretaps. Or when telecoms participating in illegal wiretaps are granted blanket immunity after the fact (which, if legal, means that the constitution means absolutely zip squat, since the constitution can be torn all to hell and those doing it, although they were committing a crime when they did it, can simply be forgiven afterwards). Or when politicians use the resources of their office to conduct their campaigns. Etc., etc., etc.

    33. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by icebike · · Score: 1

      The officials, as you so quaintly call them, were doing exactly what they were paid to do.

      Nobody has yet pointed out anything other than gossip. None of the diplomats did any thing criminal.

      Show one cable documenting a criminal act by any diplomat.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    34. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The officials, as you so quaintly call them, were doing exactly what they were paid to do.

      Of course they do.

      Nobody has yet pointed out anything other than gossip. None of the diplomats did any thing criminal.

      No, but other people did. The non-diplomats, that is. You've read those cables too, no?

      Show one cable documenting a criminal act by any diplomat.

      Can't. At least not on behalf of the US. They did what I expected, even if distasteful in many cases.

      But there are quite a few seriously disturbing one pointing out wrong-doings by government officials in other countries, like mine. You are aware that there are other countries in the world, outside the US, right? And that the cables contain relevant information for the citizens of those countries? And that what the US diplomats did or did not do is not at all surprising but what the government officials of the other countries did is?

      Stop being so self-centered and start caring about the whole, will you? (No, I don't think you will.)

    35. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is some of this "much, much more" you're referring to? Be specific.

      Google human rights groups and wikileaks.

    36. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While I understand your point that dose not mean there is nothing that should not be released.

      When the government stops proving that it cannot be trusted then the need for full disclosure will end. If you have a child and you let them have privacy and then you find out what they're doing with it is hiding their crack habit from you, are you going to permit them to continue to have privacy, when it is possible that it will lead to their death and/or your incarceration? If our elected officials prove time and again that they are not taking our best interests to heart, will we continue to trust them with secrecy? All they have to do to win our trust is earn it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      With children you are correct. The problem that you seem to fail to understand is that there are many discussions that much good can come from that can not take place without secrecy. Things that people will not discuss. I will bet that when the Eric Schmidt said that "if you do not want the whole world to know about something maybe you should not be doing it" you hated that. I will bet that you think that you would be harmed if you could not communicate with anyone without some privacy.

      Or you don't believe what you are currently saying.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    38. Re:Should anybody really be supprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HaHahahaha - this guy also believes that Cuba has a better health care system than the US, and Hugo Chavez is a saint!

  3. You mean there's only one cloud? by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And Amazon is it? Why aren't we all making our own little clouds? Oh yeah, the ISPs are trying to stamp that out. I guess there can only be one.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:You mean there's only one cloud? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Why aren't we all making our own little clouds?

      Fart jokes. They never go out of style.

    2. Re:You mean there's only one cloud? by sakasune · · Score: 1

      Why aren't we all making our own little clouds?

      Fart jokes. They never go out of style.

      They may never go out of style, but sometimes they stink...

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
  4. Nudge by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 1, Informative

    About a month ago the White House called TRUtv and told them to stop airing Governor Ventura's show about FEMA internment camps* on TV or their website. TRUtv complied since they were also told if they don't cooperate they'd be audited by the IRS. It makes me wonder if Amazon is under similar pressure: "Pull wikileaks or else we'll quit using your cloud services and audit you."

    *
    * http://vimeo.com/17158872

    --
    FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    1. Re:Nudge by Desler · · Score: 1

      About a month ago the White House called TRUtv and told them to stop airing Governor Ventura's show about FEMA internment camps* on TV or their website.

      I also heard they told them to stop airing the show about how the Reptilians and the Illuminati were the ones behind 9/11.

    2. Re:Nudge by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      About a month ago the White House called TRUtv and told them to stop airing Governor Ventura's show about FEMA internment camps* on TV or their website. TRUtv complied since they were also told if they don't cooperate they'd be audited by the IRS. It makes me wonder if Amazon is under similar pressure: "Pull wikileaks or else we'll quit using your cloud services and audit you."

      [citation needed]

      * http://vimeo.com/17158872

      No..., citing another web site that simply makes the same unsubstantiated claims is not a credible source. Please readjust your foil hat and try again.

      Look I'm on the side of Wikileaks and I am just as upset as the next thinking person at how easy it is to buy influence from the federal government, but the bat-shit-crazy conspiracy theories only take a way from any intelligent discourse on the matter.

    3. Re:Nudge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such pressure is needed. Every gov't contract has riders about unauthorized distribution/export of classified, defense, and technology data. If they host something like that, their contract is over, period.

    4. Re:Nudge by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      About a month ago the White House called TRUtv and told them to stop airing Governor Ventura's show about FEMA internment camps* on TV or their website.

      I didn't suppose you have anything resembling a reliable source for this claim about pressure from the White House on the wackos at TRUtv? (No, claims by Alex Jones don't count as reliable, sorry.)

      The FEMA camps and coffins BS was debunked long ago. Of course, to conspiracy theory dingbats, that just means they got to Popular Mechanics too. That's the beauty of the big conspiracy theory: it's unfalsifiable.

      On the other hand. Amazon deciding the the feds are a more profitable customer than WikiLeaks doesn't take any deep conspiracy theory to explain it

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Nudge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bat-shit-crazy conspiracy theories only take a way from any intelligent discourse on the matter....so when the US suspect a terrorist with no credible proof how come noone calls them bat shit crazy?

    6. Re:Nudge by Desler · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the nutters weren't constantly polluting the discourse with their constant false cries of wolf maybe more people would?

    7. Re:Nudge by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      bat-shit-crazy conspiracy theories only take a way from any intelligent discourse on the matter....so when the US suspect a terrorist with no credible proof how come noone calls them bat shit crazy?

      Actually, there are a lot of us who would level that claim. The whole "culture of fear" that our "leaders" are using to manipulate the masses is given plenty of air, here and elsewhere.

    8. Re:Nudge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you need to NOT use the wikipeadia citieation request.

      On wikipedia, that would qualify as a valid citation, and that's when wikifiddlers bother to cite anything at all.

    9. Re:Nudge by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      [citation needed] Here: Governor Ventura stated in a radio interview why the episode was pulled: He talked to TRUtv, they revealed they had received a call and were told to yank the episode, or be audited. The last part may have been an empty threat nevertheless it had the desired result. TRUtv is afraid to air the episode a second time, and they pulled it off their website.

      As for the episode's content, even if it's 100% whackjob fiction, it does not matter. (1) It's not as if this country has never used internment camps before. Just talk to an American from the 1940s who found themselves arrested & thrown into one. (2) This is a case of government doing what it is explicitly forbidden to do (not block free speech or press).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:Nudge by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Even if the Ventura Internment camps is complete-and-utter BS (which I believe it is), doesn't it bother you that the White House has power to yank any TV show they don't like? Just by picking up the phone, calling the cable channel, and demanding it be removed or else the channel would be audited.

      This is the kind of crap Nixon used to do when he was in power, except in his case, it was mostly blocking newspapers from printing unfavorable articles. Different target but still suppression of the free press.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Nudge by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      So, you've got nothing then. Well, you do have hearsay but in this context, that's worse than nothing.

    12. Re:Nudge by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      doesn't it bother you that the White House has power to yank any TV show they don't like? Just by picking up the phone, calling the cable channel, and demanding it be removed or else the channel would be audited.

      It would indeed bother me greatly if it were the the case. My question is, can someone provide a reliable source showing that it is the case that the White House has done this?

      Please note that even if the organization in question is facing an audit, that doesn't mean that the audit is because Obama called the IRS and said "get these guys!" If an audit is occurring, it could be random, or it could be due to irregularities in their tax paperwork. (I'm guessing good odds that there's a correlation between folks who believe in the FEMA camps and people who believe in wacky tax resister theories.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  5. Predicted future news: by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

    Nepotism and corruption remain major factors in business decisions the world over.

    1. Re:Predicted future news: by GigG · · Score: 1

      While you might be right I'd like to see how this qualifies as either.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    2. Re:Predicted future news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to continue easily winning government contracts, you'd better keep them happy with your political views! That, my friend, is both.

  6. And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by Ismellpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can't even handle their own server farm? What does that say about technical competence of those employed by the government?
    And you would think in these days of leaked this and that the government would try and keep their data a little closer to home.
    AWS shut down wikileaks why can't they do the same for the US gov or al the very least do some snooping?

    1. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      They can't even handle their own server farm?

      Because the government NEVER contracts out ANYTHING. Its all in house right?

      No seriously, where have you been?

    2. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2

      They can't even handle their own server farm? What does that say about technical competence of those employed by the government?

      And you would think in these days of leaked this and that the government would try and keep their data a little closer to home.

      They do! However, they probably determined it's cheaper to move some of their non-sensitive sites to Amazon EC2 (not AWS) and consolidate their sensitive servers into less data centers.

      AWS shut down wikileaks why can't they do the same for the US gov or al the very least do some snooping?

      One of these organizations has boatloads of money. Which do you think it is?

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    3. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by Ismellpoop · · Score: 1

      Then did it go through a proper tender with competing companies bidding the contract or was it just one of those back-alley deals?

    4. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Amazon AWS cannot be used as a FIPS compliant data store even for encrypted volumes or backups and basically is useless for anything but providing open-bid competitive remote storage/access for public data sources. That is unless they built an entirely new facility for dealing with US Gov. At the time I toured one of the AWS facilities there was absolutely no way they could meet FIPS and they had no intention of trying.

      2) The US gov could build a private cloud, as soon as they realize that no matter how many contractors they bring in versus having in house staff tell them, the shit isn't going to magically drop in price to anything but a multi-million dollar project due to NIST/FIPS requirements for site redundancy and DR and trying to integrate those requirements with real-world virtual server environments and SAN.

      (Coming from an (ex-) civilian public servant. Ticking anonymous. :)

    5. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I'd rather the government not be spending money on maintaining an infrastructure that industry can do far more cost effectively.

    6. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by alen · · Score: 1

      things probably changed but back in the day it took permission from God to buy a server. and months of waiting. one time at one base they spent $200,000 on new switches that sat around for a year because the project to install them wasn't funded. and you can't keep the money for next year.

      AWS is awesome. you pay Amazon a fee and you get flexibility. Clinton and Bush tried to fix things but the government unions kill any reform attempt

    7. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      They do! However, they probably determined it's cheaper to move some of their non-sensitive sites to Amazon EC2 (not AWS) and consolidate their sensitive servers into less data centers.

      And it's probably easier for the US Gov to censor stuff if it isn't hosting it.

      --
    8. Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      And why exactly is the US gov using Boeing?They can't even handle their own fighter jet construction? What does that say about technical competence of those employed by the military?

      Want to reconsider your comment?

  7. Amazon Response by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
    I've been upset at Amazon since the 1-click patent, but if you're going to delve into conspiracy theories, you might as well give Amazon's side as well (it's at least as likely to be true as what is said by Dave Winer, who "was already upset that Amazon Web Services (AWS) pulled the plug on WikiLeak").

    Amazon response found here, excerpt quoted for the lazy:

    AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them. There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that “you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.” It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. 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.

    Judge for yourself what is true, but be not hasty in judgement.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Amazon Response by Ismellpoop · · Score: 2

      And the government doesn't put innocent people in jeopardy? Or is the government bound by the TOS or are they once again exempt from rules they make for others to live by?

    2. Re:Amazon Response by dominion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      U.S. federal government documents are not covered under copyright, so when you're talking about "ownership", there's no legal basis for this argument. Those documents, now leaked, are in the public domain. Wikileaks "owns" them just as much as anyone else.

      Also, this part:

      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.

      Is a really dangerous precedent for Amazon to set for themselves. If you're going to cancel members accounts based on not just the potential danger of known information held within, but on the possibility that information not yet discovered could potentially put someone in danger, that's making a decision based on an extraordinary amount of hypotheticals.

    3. Re:Amazon Response by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but it is perfectly fine precedent for WikiLeaks to judge that they aren't putting anyone at risk.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    4. Re:Amazon Response by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know, what do you think? Let's look at the link from the OP that lists the government usage of AWS.

      Do you think the government's recovery.org website is putting innocent people in jeopardy? Or perhaps the Open Energy Information Initiative (from the DOE)? Or are you thinking of the Department of Agriculture's website? Do you consider NASA's website to be harmful, since it contains the word 'jet propulsion' which sounds kind of like a weapon?

      People are getting too steamed up about the Wikileaks thing and need to chill. As far as we can tell, no one's died because of them, the US government really hasn't been hurt. On the flip side, nothing shocking has been revealed (and if you're thinking of replying to this post saying, "the US spied and pressured!" save your fingers, oh naive one). To an observer of international politics they are like candy, and I'm looking forward to the bank releases (which may actually be damaging), but so far it's just entertainment.

      Relax, world.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Amazon Response by dominion · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, but it is perfectly fine precedent for WikiLeaks to judge that they aren't putting anyone at risk.

      Less than 1% of the cables have been released. Wikileaks is working with around a dozen news services from around the world to sift through the data. Wikileaks gave The Pentagon the option to redact sensitive information, and they refused.

      There has not been a full dump of the 250,000 cables, they have been slowly releasing them alongside the news agencies they're working with (New York Times, The Guardian, etc). What we've seen so far is only a small fraction of the cables.

      The idea that Wikileaks has been indiscriminate with releasing the cables is simply not true.

    6. Re:Amazon Response by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Especially as the statement you quote is an outright lie by Amazon. While this "fact" is a standard pro-Government talking point, it simply is utterly untrue that Wikileaks is releasing 250,000 leaked cables. They are, indeed, only releasing those that have gone through a review process (and they're involving a small group of selected, highly respected, journalists, who are familiar with the redacting process, to do this review.)

      The fact Amazon.com needs to resort to a bald-faced lie to distance itself from the allegations of government pressure says a great deal about the truth here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Amazon Response by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      So it starts off reasonable.. "copyright violation against terms of service" then turns into a "we're saving innocent people" speech which makes them loose all creditability. So yeah, I'm not buying their story with that saving lives part tacked on the end.

    8. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. 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." Is a pretty weak excuse. First, the documents are not copyrighted and information is not by default 'owned' by anyone. If words could be 'owned' then we would not be allowed to use any word in the dictionary without websters prior approval. Second how do they know that wikileaks could not have safely redacted the information. As the U.S. army itself corrected an earlier assertion there is no evidence that anyone was harmed by the Afghan or Iraqi war diaries. Also wikileaks contacted State for their input on redactions. They are making a convenient assuption, now had they gone the route of paypal saying that the site encouraged illegal behavior there would be less of a problem. However both claims are technically allegations as wikileaks has yet to be convicted in court.

    9. Re:Amazon Response by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      The idea that Wikileaks has been indiscriminate with releasing the cables is simply not true.

      Erm, this time. The last release, not so true. Glad to see that they *have* learned something from that debacle though.

    10. Re:Amazon Response by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      A bald-faced lie? They said Wikileaks was violating several of the terms of service. One of the terms of service is "don't use our service to break US law". It's pretty clear that Wikileaks was violating US law. Ergo, not a lie.

      At any rate, you're nitpicking over the wording used by the Amazon representative. Perhaps "doesn't own or otherwise control the rights to the classified content" was not the clearest way to put it, but unless you're deliberately being dense, the meaning is clear: Wikileaks is not permitted by US law to distribute these documents. Clearly, distributing documents in violation of US law qualifies under "don't use our service to break US law".

      They did not say that Wikileaks has published 250,000 documents, they said that Wikileaks is publishing 250,000 documents. That does not contradict your statement; "is publishing" is clearly present tense and indicates an ongoing process. Furthermore, just because you are convinced that the redaction and review process that Wikileaks is using is sufficient and won't miss anything does not mean Amazon must also be convinced the process is sufficient.

      Anyone who takes a moment to actually read Amazon's terms of service will see that Amazon didn't need government pressure to kick Wikileaks off of AWS.

      Do you really think Wikileaks should be allowed to agree to terms of service, and then intentionally violate those terms of service? If so, then you must also permit any entity to do so, which of course invalidates the entire concept of terms of service. I really hope that is not your goal.

    11. Re:Amazon Response by amentajo · · Score: 4, Informative

      A bald-faced lie? They said Wikileaks was violating several of the terms of service. One of the terms of service is "don't use our service to break US law". It's pretty clear that Wikileaks was violating US law. Ergo, not a lie.

      Nearly every legal expert who has spoken on this topic has argued that Wikileaks has not violated US law.

      At any rate, you're nitpicking over the wording used by the Amazon representative. Perhaps "doesn't own or otherwise control the rights to the classified content" was not the clearest way to put it, but unless you're deliberately being dense, the meaning is clear: Wikileaks is not permitted by US law to distribute these documents. Clearly, distributing documents in violation of US law qualifies under "don't use our service to break US law".

      Publishing classified documents is not illegal, unless the documents fit certain criteria that (so far) these leaks do not. The person or organization who leaks the documents does have some liability, but not Wikileaks. As has been said many times before, Wikileaks is analogous to the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers incident.

    12. Re:Amazon Response by iammani · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks gave The Pentagon the option to redact sensitive information, and they refused.

      Pentagon actually did reply, claiming everything wikileaks had was sensitive.
       
      /ducks

    13. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, all federal documents are NOT owned by the federal government, they are by law, 'public record'. If the federal government could claim ownership of any of them, then they should have done so in a court of law and claimed copyright infringement, but they did not, so if they had rights to any of the documents, by law they forfeted those rights by failing to defend their copyright, which is required by law if copyright holders wish to retain their rights. That means Wikileaks was not in violation of that term of agreement.

      Second, Amazon made the decision to remove them without even giving wikileaks the chance to prove their case. Clearly it was politically motivated, as was MasterCard and Visas action in the events.

      Clearly these big companies have too much power. I saw Amazon, Mastercard and Visa all need to go out of business.

      Is there anybody out there that works or use to work for Amazon or Mastercard or Visa? We want to hear from you; what is the inside scoop?

    14. Re:Amazon Response by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I thought that the Pentagon investigation of the war docs concluded that the release as performed by Wikileaks did not put anyone in danger?

    15. Re:Amazon Response by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      What. The. Fuck?

      Beyond identifying the fact I found some kind of lie in Amazon.com's "explanation" as to why they did what they did, your comment is completely unrelated to anything I wrote. There is no way to read my original comment as being about anything other than Amazon.com's assertion that Wikileaks is publishing 250,000 wires.

      Extraordinarily, not only did you miss that, but you managed to quote every other part of Amazon.com's explanation except the publishing 250,000 wires part in defending Bezos's truthiness!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "It's clear that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content"

      Because people have no business owning the information owned by the United States, which is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      Wait a second.

    17. Re:Amazon Response by vux984 · · Score: 1

      You don't appear to understand what "classified" means. It is instructions to the government charged with taking care of the documents to ensure that they don't get released to people who don't have the right clearance. If they get released or leaked, they aren't "classified" anymore, they are in the public domain. The public is not generally responsible for enforcing or respecting "classified".

      It's pretty clear that Wikileaks was violating US law. Ergo, not a lie.

      No, its not clear that Wikileaks was violating U.S. law at all. Being accused of breaking the law isn't a violation of the law. Perhaps you should leave deciding who is breaking the law to the courts before we start vigilante activities.

      Wikileaks is not permitted by US law to distribute these documents.

      Care to cite a law which backs that up.

      I agree completely that US Government employees are not permitted by US law to distribute these documents, but can you find one that would apply to a civilian organization? especially one based offshore? ...Amazon must also be convinced the process is sufficient.

      Precisely how do you imagine Amazon convinces itself that the future information that any user of its service will not one day violate its ToS? Its absurd to even assert that they even try.

      Do you really think Wikileaks should be allowed to agree to terms of service, and then intentionally violate those terms of service?

      Perhaps we should wait for them to violate those terms of service in the physical world, rather than in some made up hypothetical scenario with imaginary laws and the ability to see into the future.

    18. Re:Amazon Response by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Did you read the middle paragraph of my post? I specifically addressed the "250,000 documents" portion of Amazon's statement.

    19. Re:Amazon Response by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Care to cite a law which backs that up.

      Sure.

      Under 18 USC 793, persons convicted of gathering defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation may be fined or sentenced to no more than 10 years imprisonment. Persons who disclose that information to any person not entitled to receive it are subject to the same penalty. Classified documents may remain within the ambit of the statute even if information contained therein is made public by an unauthorized leak.

      Statements taken from this document.

      Amazon should not have to wait until a user has been convicted of violating US law before deciding that user has violated the "do not break US law" portion of the terms of service, especially when there are clear sections of US law that the user is violating. Otherwise, they would be unable to remove users who e.g. distribute child pornography until those users are convicted in court.

      You may disagree about whether 18 USC 793 applies. That's fine. Your disagreement has no consequences. Amazon bears some risk as a result of their understanding of this law whichever way they interpret it, so it should not be surprising that they choose the safer interpretation.

      At any rate, this entire argument is stupid. Wikileaks was offline for no more than a day or two as a result of Amazon's action, and they suffered no harm. Why get mad at Amazon for choosing a less risky interpretation of the law, when no harm was caused to Wikileaks as a result?

    20. Re:Amazon Response by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks gave The Pentagon the option to redact sensitive information, and they refused.

      Yeah, "Hey, Pentagon, why don't you identify the most sensitive parts of the documents we stole and save us the trouble of sifting through them". This keeps getting brought up as if it makes Wikileaks some kind of beneficent and thoughtful organization - but lets be honest here, it's not like Wikileaks has shown any evidence of that. Asking the Pentagon to redact the documents for them is like asking the parents of the kids you kidnapped to send you their winter clothes and the Christmas presents they bought them.
       

      There has not been a full dump of the 250,000 cables, they have been slowly releasing them alongside the news agencies they're working with (New York Times, The Guardian, etc). What we've seen so far is only a small fraction of the cables.
       
      The idea that Wikileaks has been indiscriminate with releasing the cables is simply not true.

      Of course they haven't released them all, that would require that Wikileaks actually be honest and open. But like shutting down public comments (the 'Wiki' part of 'Wikileaks') and shutting down acess to the data (the 'leaks' parts of 'Wikileaks') to force people to contribute to the site... The same as with the bit about the Pentagon above, this isn't evidence of Wikileaks being beneficent and thoughtful - it's evidence of Wikileaks placing it's own organizational interests above that of it's notional purpose.

    21. Re:Amazon Response by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      If you shoot at someone, and the bullet misses, does that mean it was alright?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    22. Re:Amazon Response by arkane1234 · · Score: 0

      Wikileaks is by no means anything like the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers incident.
      Wikileaks by very nature is a childish group of people who think that they are "giving it to the mannn mannnn".

      Even *WE* are wondering what the hell this is going to change... think about that.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    23. Re:Amazon Response by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Interesting terms of service. How many customers could possibly be thrown off Amazon capriciously by invoking those terms? How many things you can do that you can warrant "will not cause injury to any person or entitiy"?

      If I were thinking of doing anything potentially controversial, I'd take this as a warning not to use Amazon.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Amazon Response by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      They did not say that Wikileaks has published 250,000 documents, they said that Wikileaks is publishing 250,000 documents.

      Exactly what they said was "...the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted..."

      They are using "publishing" in the present tense. That's clear because they said that the documents "could not have been carefully redacted" [emphasis added]. They didn't say wikileaks "won't be able to carefully redact these documents," they said that they could not have done so. Past tense.

      They're not worried that the future documents won't be reviewed before being published, they are claiming that there must be a risk to lives because they could not be publishing (present tense) 250,000 documents without having reviewed them first. The entire statement is used to justify that wikileaks is risking lives, which is why it is a lie to say that they "are publishing" 250,000 documents without reviewing them.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    25. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the pentagon have admitted that, despite all the noise on the issue, they have no evidence of anybody being harmed as a result of the Afghan war logs being released.

    26. Re:Amazon Response by 'Aikanaka · · Score: 1

      Wrong, see this article -- US Government information maybe protected by copyright -- by Bonnie Klein, a copyright specialist with the DTIC.

    27. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about the number of names released that could be counted on one hand? Of which not a single one of those was harmed by the release?

      Yeah, that was horrendous.

    28. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just might want to read this....

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204527804576044020396601528.html

    29. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While this might very well be entertaining to American citizens, for me as a Swedish citizen these leaked cables have been a shocking revelation. Yes, some of us have long assumed that USA have had some say in our judicical system, it was pretty obvious that they ordered the raid on TPB's ISP, but seeing printed in black on white, and learning just how much the Swedish Department of Justice have been controlled by the US, is horrible.

      Still, the leaks have not done much to change the situation. The laws are still being pushed by the government and the media is controlled either by the government or owned by American companies, meaning they report little or nothing about these leaks.

    30. Re:Amazon Response by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The fact Amazon.com needs to resort to a bald-faced lie to distance itself from the allegations of government pressure says a great deal about the truth here.

      Where are people going if they don't want to use Amazon anymore?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    31. Re:Amazon Response by drolli · · Score: 1

      In the TOS Amazon also explicitly states that they will shut your service down if asked by an US official institution. Nothing about a court order or such. I guess that is to prevent costs for lawyers checking every request.

      I guess the whole TOS of Amazon scream the following between the lines: Our main business is not web-hosting, let alone bullet-proof webhosting. We have computing centers which we had to build for other purposes. We are reselling the unused capacity really cheap, and many people liked it so we have a few more servers than we need. We do not like trouble for that. If you need a web-hoster who only takes you down after a court order we suggest you look for another one.

    32. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fine to say "oh naive one". But even for people who did know or thought this would be the case, this is factual evidence to back it up and not here-say or history(non-recent). This is a tool with which they can inform the real naive people and have credibility. I mean if you have no evidence for certain claims, people will side with the authority more often than not. And those authority will lie, twist, spin and just not know what is really going on.

    33. Re:Amazon Response by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's pretty clear that Wikileaks was violating US law.

      Really? What, exactly, is the charge? And why haven't an arrest order for Assange been issued in U.S. yet?

    34. Re:Amazon Response by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      A bald-faced lie? They said Wikileaks was violating several of the terms of service. One of the terms of service is "don't use our service to break US law". It's pretty clear that Wikileaks was violating US law. Ergo, not a lie.

      Yes, a bald faced lie. See we have this thing called "Innocent until proven guilty". Unless you can show where the court documents and jury verdict is no US law have been violated.

      Falcon

    35. Re:Amazon Response by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Where are people going if they don't want to use Amazon anymore?

      Exactly what I was thinking. When I've ordered from Amazon it's because doing so has saved me money compared to buying somewhere else. I was going to say I could order books from Bookpool but it's now part of Amazon. There are Barnes and Noble as well as Borders but Amazon is cheaper and being on disability I need to watch my money.

      Falcon

    36. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikileaks is by no means anything like the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers incident.
      Wikileaks by very nature is a childish group of people who think that they are "giving it to the mannn mannnn".

      Even *WE* are wondering what the hell this is going to change... think about that.

      lolwut

      (Yeah, just that.)

    37. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this *the* Derek Lyons? (That would explain a lot. But I digress.)

      Yeah, "Hey, Pentagon, why don't you identify the most sensitive parts of the documents we stole and save us the trouble of sifting through them".

      Fact: Wikileaks did not steal anything.

      The rest of your post is the same kind of shite that's expected from anyone called Derek Lyons. In short, utter tripe.

    38. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you shoot at someone, and the bullet misses, does that mean it was alright?

      If someone says "This thing you're doing will lead to the deaths of x number of people and the endangerment of countless more!" and I say "No, it most certainly will not." and subsequent analysis shows the first statement to be utterly and completely wrong and my own to be completely correct, who is telling the truth?

      It's not that hard, is it?

      Seeing the truth for what it is, I mean. Unless you don't like the truth, or don't want the truth to be publicly known, of course, in which case I can understand your difficulties with the whole thing.

    39. Re:Amazon Response by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The entire statement is used to justify that wikileaks is risking lives, which is why it is a lie to say that they "are publishing" 250,000 documents without reviewing them.

      Thank goodness their new big customer, US Government, doesn't risk lives.

      Oh, wait, but they have a buttload of cash. Nevermind.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    40. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is shocking is that you don't think it's shocking... Nothing to see here! Move along!

    41. Re:Amazon Response by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Government documents are not protected by copyright whether they are classified or not. Whether they can be said to cause injury is debatable just like a good number of US government departments (like the DEA's war on marijuna)

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    42. Re:Amazon Response by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      nothing shocking has been revealed

      Nothing shocking has been revealed; we knew these things were going on, so we are not shocked. But shocking things have been proven; the average person was shocked when they found out about the intentional complicity for nothing more than money, and now we have absolute proof that they are intentional acts for profit. I am not shocked, but if these things came to light for the first time, I would be.

      Relax, world.

      Yes, relax, and be good little corporate slaves.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Amazon Response by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, relax, and be good little corporate slaves.

      Hehe, so, tell me, what are you going to do when you are no longer a corporate slave?

      --
      Qxe4
    44. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, what do you think? Let's look at the link from the OP that lists the government usage of AWS.

      Do you think the government's recovery.org website is putting innocent people in jeopardy? Or perhaps the Open Energy Information Initiative (from the DOE)? Or are you thinking of the Department of Agriculture's website? Do you consider NASA's website to be harmful, since it contains the word 'jet propulsion' which sounds kind of like a weapon?

      People are getting too steamed up about the Wikileaks thing and need to chill. As far as we can tell, no one's died because of them, the US government really hasn't been hurt. On the flip side, nothing shocking has been revealed (and if you're thinking of replying to this post saying, "the US spied and pressured!" save your fingers, oh naive one). To an observer of international politics they are like candy, and I'm looking forward to the bank releases (which may actually be damaging), but so far it's just entertainment.

      Relax, world.

      Actually people have died. In Afghanistan a villager named as providing some information to International forces was killed by the Taliban.

    45. Re:Amazon Response by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Don't make assumptions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Amazon Response by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      "Innocent until proven guilty" is not relevant to private companies. Amazon is not required to wait until its user is convicted of $CRIME before deciding the user needs to be booted off of Amazon's servers because of it.

    47. Re:Amazon Response by geschild · · Score: 1

      "Nearly every legal expert who has spoken on this topic has argued that Wikileaks has not violated US law."

      More to the point: is Amazon now Judge Dredd?

      Oh who are we kidding, they're censoring bloody books. The ship to the new world sailed long ago... :P

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    48. Re:Amazon Response by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol oh yeah? Sorry I did make the assumption that some day you will no longer be a corporate slave. My mistake. I didn't realize that you are going to be one forever. :)

      --
      Qxe4
    49. Re:Amazon Response by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      "Innocent until proven guilty" is not relevant to private companies. Amazon is not required to wait until its user is convicted of $CRIME before deciding the user needs to be booted off of Amazon's servers because of it.

      Again in the US there's this thing called contract law. Amazon's can not say their terms of service were violated until there is a guilty verdict. Now whether Wikileaks violated another term is neither here nor there, Amazon said the term violated was breaking US law. There was no guilty verdict!

      How hard is that to understand?

      Falcon

    50. Re:Amazon Response by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Companies can decide their terms of service are being violated at any time, they don't have to wait for a US court to decide the company's terms of service have been violated.

      Suppose I watch you steal a candy bar. You have broken the law, whether or not a court convicts you of it. To claim otherwise is absurd.

      If Wikileaks wants to challenge Amazon's assertion that they've violated US law, I don't personally have a problem with them trying. Somehow I don't see them even trying, though, let alone succeeding.

    51. Re:Amazon Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last release was much smaller, and they redacted all the names of source there too.

    52. Re:Amazon Response by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Companies can decide their terms of service are being violated at any time, they don't have to wait for a US court to decide the company's terms of service have been violated.

      If they don't wait and it's in the contract then they can be sued for breach of contract.

      To claim otherwise is absurd.

      To claim otherwise is what's absurd.

      As for whether Wikileaks would do that I doubt. Amazon was giving free use of servers and storage space to Wikileaks.

      Falcon

  8. American company receives American pork by mewsenews · · Score: 2

    ie. non-story

    1. Re:American company receives American pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon Gets Porked? It may not be a story, but it sounds like a damn fine movie.

    2. Re:American company receives American pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that people like you refer to this as a "non-story" shows just how far the quality of discourse has fallen. We must still discuss why the situation is unjust and undemocratic - how to fight these injustices and ultimately dismantle these systems.

    3. Re:American company receives American pork by sjames · · Score: 1

      American company porks everyone. FTFY.

  9. Not a bad thing. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    You don't insist that Pepsi's bottling company also provide bottles to Coke?

    In addition, Amazon is probably too much a part of the culture to be appropriate for a counterculture website like Wikileaks.

    It would be kind of like Fox Broadcasting owning the New York Times (or is that the other way around?)

    In other words, Wikileaks needs to be able to report leaks ABOUT Amazon.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Not a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in europe, if the bottle producing company is on its own (aka not pepsi company itself producing their own bottles for their own use) and coke company comes to them to order bottles and they say "nay, we only sell to pepsi" it is a definitive act of discrimination, and as such illegal.

      I do believe it is different in the us, but I just wanted to give you a hint that this is not that unusual (and i can imagine that at least some states in the us have similar rules - imagine a black person gets to starbucks and orders a coffee and gets the answer "we do not sell to black people", lawyers would be happy to jump in ...)

    2. Re:Not a bad thing. by screwzloos · · Score: 1

      What if instead the answer was "Sorry, we only make enough bottles to supply Pepsi, but if you want to pay us more we'll supply you instead.", would that be illegal? Because that's the American way of doing things.

    3. Re:Not a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Everything about this post (except the last sentence) is weird and nonsensical.

      The last sentence is very interesting however.

  10. Freedom and liberty by unity100 · · Score: 1

    comes after profits, in united states of capitalica ... i dont know there is an economic system which encourages lack of spine more than capitalism.

    1. Re:Freedom and liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont know there is an economic system which encourages lack of spine more than capitalism

      Every other economic system yet devised?

    2. Re:Freedom and liberty by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, make your own cloud. Hell, look at all the usenet providers - they're independent from Amazon and seem to host far scarier things than wikileaks. Or so I've heard.

      Hell, if you want to guarantee the life of wikileaks, just post it to usenet.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Freedom and liberty by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      vcomes after profits, in united states of capitalica ..

      Wait, now it's up to businesses to enforce freedom and liberty? I thought that was the citizen's jobs via their elected representatives?

      . i dont know there is an economic system which encourages lack of spine more than capitalism.

      A much more challenging proposition is to name one that encourages having a spine more than capitalism.

    4. Re:Freedom and liberty by coliverhb · · Score: 1

      vcomes after profits, in united states of capitalica ..

      Wait, now it's up to businesses to enforce freedom and liberty? I thought that was the citizen's jobs via their elected representatives?

      What you're forgetting is, that businesses are owned and operated by citizens. Oh, you're also forgetting that businesses are considered citizens in the court of law now, shouldn't they be held to the same standard? I mean, why do they get all the perks with none of the responsibility? The Idea that it's OK for businesses to take advantage/not stand up for rights is ridiculous. Then again, I'm sure CEOs, MBAs, and the entirety of the financial sector really like that your attitude prevails. Thats how they get away with the rest of us second class citizens money. Cause it's OK for them to lie, cheat, and steal... How fast would you end up in jail for the shit they pull on a daily basis? If they want the rights, they have to deal with the added responsibility. Or, we could just go back to calling them organizations, not people.

      . i dont know there is an economic system which encourages lack of spine more than capitalism.

      A much more challenging proposition is to name one that encourages having a spine more than capitalism.

      Well, there are silver linings in every cloud. In china, CEO's and public officials are EXECUTED for taking or giving bribes. If they harm the people the government actually DOES something about it. I'm not saying that its all roses and tulips over there, but god-damn, you can't tell me it wouldn't be satisfying to see the government and our representatives grow spines and actually work for us. For some juxtaposition, you have South Korea, which is rabidly capitalistic, and guess what? CEO's found guilty and sentenced to prison are pardoned by their president. You know what the difference is? it's not capitalism - since china is moving towards capitalism as well. Its having people who actually DO their job in the right positions. It's not considering a company to be a separate entity from its top executives. I guarantee you, if we executed a few CEO's the companies would shape up. Then again, I feel that the same is true of our elected representatives. Think about it, the money that they embezzle, the taxes they evade, and the bailouts they recieve are all being stolen from the rest of us peasants. Are you ready for the American version of the French revolution? I am. "Down with the new nobles!"

    5. Re:Freedom and liberty by tombeard · · Score: 1
      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  11. This is dumb by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2

    What exactly are you entitled to know exactly and what is your basis for such an assertion?

    Nuclear codes? Secret discussions with world leaders? Communications from politicians in radical Muslim countries trying to help us out?

    While secrecy can be abused (that's why Congressional oversight exists in America btw), it is needed.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:This is dumb by Ismellpoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And Congress is the epitome of honesty and they are constantly on the lookout for the best interest of Americans.

    2. Re:This is dumb by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      The fact that congress suck so badly at its job is the fault of the people who elect congress.

      When people are stupid and lazy. They get the government they deserve.

      So either STFU about it and 'Grab yo gubment check' or take a stand and give up free time to fight. Your choice.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:This is dumb by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      The fact that congress suck so badly at its job is the fault of the people who elect congress.

      Yes, because after they're already elected, the people have so much power over them, right? Well, that's not to say that you aren't right about fighting, though. Even if most people were lazy (and they are), the government is still mostly at fault for its own corrupt actions.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:This is dumb by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      We do have power. We do not use it. We re elect almost everyone. No matter how much they screw up. We allow politicians to serve for decades. To have a career in politics. The fact that you believe that you are powerless just shows how much they have trained your brain to think the way they want it to. You are powerless and the government is here to protect you.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:This is dumb by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      We do have power.

      I was speaking more of the power to convince them to represent the people than anything else. Sure, not voting them in again helps, but once they're in, they have little obligation to listen to the people unless it is absolutely necessary. They can just put on a little show, and those with naive minds will likely believe that they are doing a good job.

      The fact that you believe that you are powerless just shows how much they have trained your brain to think the way they want it to.

      You misunderstand. I don't believe that the people are powerless, but many people actually do believe that they are powerless.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:This is dumb by Grygus · · Score: 1

      Given that we've pretty much cleaned house in the last ten years and it's still business as usual up there, I question the practicality of your assertion. Even if you came up with hundreds of reputable, qualified independents, how would they run? Even if they were people everyone in America would get behind, how would America hear about them? Elections are about money, and the money game is dominated by the Democrats and Republicans. I think the institution is the problem, not the individuals, and I think that the institution is more powerful than you think.

    7. Re:This is dumb by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      The power comes from having a people who do not re elect fucktards. Once fucktards get only one chance to serve they will not act like fucktards.

      Those elect have total power over those they elect IF they choose to use that right.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    8. Re:This is dumb by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The power comes from having a people who do not re elect fucktards.

      It doesn't do too much good if once elected, they are free to do as they please. There's essentially almost no way to stop them (aside from people actually throwing them out). I believe that mere votes aren't going to rid us of this blatant corruption.

      The corrupt politician may be gone next time around, but another will likely take his place (possibly even acting in his stead).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    9. Re:This is dumb by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      If we catch one acting in anothers stead then capital punishment would be an appropriate response to a crime against the American people.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:This is dumb by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      the idea that the system works it's the people that suck is not a helpful or useful idea. People will *always* be stupid and lazy, those that aren't don't really care about fairness they just want whatever is best for them.

      To get a good goverment you need to work on the system to make it take into account that everyone relating to it in any way will be stupid, lazy and selfish people. How you actually acomplish that is left as an excersice to the reader.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    11. Re:This is dumb by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That is why I believe that The people should be far more involved in government, and not be limited to mere votes.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:This is dumb by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      While secrecy can be abused (that's why Congressional oversight exists in America btw), it is needed.

      You may want to look again. In most ways that matter, Congressional oversight does not exist in America.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    13. Re:This is dumb by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Yes, because after they're already elected, the people have so much power over them, right?

      Car analogy time. Take a car into a dry lakebed, put a cinder block on the gas pedal and set the steering wheel up so the car will go in a straight line. Now, it may take a mile or two, but that car is going to start to veer in one direction or another.

      Representatives are the same way. You can't just vote one into office and then disengage. You have to stay in touch with him, keep letting him know what you want him to do on particular issues, just like you have to steer a car to keep it moving in a straight line.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    14. Re:This is dumb by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You have to stay in touch with him, keep letting him know what you want him to do on particular issues, just like you have to steer a car to keep it moving in a straight line.

      That would be nice if it actually worked. The fact of the matter is, however, that in most circumstances, they don't have to listen to the people to get their vote. All they have to do is either pretend that they can't resolve the issue and put on a show, come up with numerous examples about why something can't be resolved, or just lie in general. I don't see how else the same two parties are continuously voted in again and again.

      What we need is balance of power between the government and the people. The government shouldn't be able to effectively shut out their voice once they have power, but the people also shouldn't have too much.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:This is dumb by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Secret discussions with world leaders? Communications from politicians in radical Muslim countries trying to help us out?
      You really need to read some of the more interesting ones. From trade to Russian crypto, abuses by mercs, Australia sitting politicians having chats with the US, p2p laws in Spain..
      Also the US does offer press protection for this. Many others have leaked and its not the 1930's (US ww1 crypto intercept book) or 1970's (Pentagon papers) anymore.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. Find out for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then did it go through a proper tender with competing companies bidding the contract or was it just one of those back-alley deals?

    Seriously, have you ever heard of google?

    They have this thing called a "seach engine, it's like a giant database that you can query to find information like this (bid requests and such for this type of thing are made public and posted online), instead of just asking some stranger on an obscure software discussion forum.

    1. Re:Find out for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, have you ever heard of this nigger?

      They have this thing called a "nigger", it's like a giant nigger that you can nigger to find nigger like this (bid niggers and such for this type of nigger are made nigger and niggered online), instead of just niggering some nigger on an obscure nigger discussion nigger.

  13. Why Doesn't Winer Host It Then? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

    All these people moaning that Amazon have pulled out of it, yet none of them seem to have made any moves to step in and take over...

    1. Re:Why Doesn't Winer Host It Then? by OFnow · · Score: 1

      Uh, I'd love to do that on a home machine, but Comcast says that is against Comcast Terms Of Service.
      No can do. Wait, I could rent space on Amazon's cloud and... Oops. No. Against some TOS there.

    2. Re:Why Doesn't Winer Host It Then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hosting did not go so well when Winer was in charge of it.

      http://www.metafilter.com/1594/What-happened-to-Array

  14. No different than every other massive company... by jmerlin · · Score: 1

    screw over customers to get favors (read: money and favorable legislation) from the federal govt. How many lobbyists does Amazon have again?

  15. Needs of the stockholders come first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon is a publicly traded company. It has a legal obligation to its stockholders to maximize its stock price. The feds are a much bigger customer.

    It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.
    - Michael Corleone

  16. Dave Winer skimmed the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this worthy of a post? The man didn't even read the articles in question closely and attempts to contribute to a public debate. More importantly he gets key facts wrong because of his skimming.

    IMO - Don't waste your time. Read and reply to people who bother to properly inform themselves.

  17. Re:Govt to make money for Business by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    Isn't the House of Representatives composed of Amazon, Ebay, Banks, RIAA, ...wait, you mean we elect people-persons and not legal-persons? I thought RIAA was doing just fine as Majority Whip.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  18. Must have spelled his name wrong. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it would be much more appropriate as "Dave Whiner". I know it's the end of the year and all, but somebody's whine about how Amazon is a business and is acting to protect its interests as a business is news? Not to mention the mistaken (or misrepresented) info that Winer included in his commentary.

  19. How is this any different from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    advertisers on TV impacting news about the advertisers -- or news about legislation that affects the advertisers? What about contributions to PBS and how it might affect who gets invited to various discussion panels?

    Incentives drive human behavior. Executives, journalists, activists, etc. all have their incentives. Right now, the incentives are structured in a way that promotes "incumbent protectionism" rather than meritocracy or honesty.

    For example, what is the incentive for journalists or legislators to talk about ending the "Double Irish Arrangement" or "Dutch Sandwich" tax loopholes? A small business making under $1 million in profits will pay nearly 40% in federal taxes, but a large business using these schemes can make $10 billion in profits and pay under 5% federal tax on those profits. I'm talking about profits, not revenues (I'm surrounded by mullet-heads that don't understand revenues vs profits and constantly vote against their own interests.)

  20. Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What language is this?

    "ability to scale video slideshow site Animoto"

    What great writing. Fuck Slashdot.

  21. Please by sigzero · · Score: 0

    Amazon was totally in the right. You don't like it don't play in their sandbox.

  22. Somehow it's reassuring... by fortfive · · Score: 1

    ...that Amazon is only choosing a bigger customer, rather than kowtowing to government pressure.

  23. Are people really the problem? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Even if most people were lazy (and they are), the government is still mostly at fault for its own corrupt actions.

    Are they? I think that is a lazy misconception that hides the truth. Your thesis is that people are too lazy to be bothered with watching the working of their own government.

    Do you really think that most people have the time to follow in detail every piece of legislation that is run through local, state, and federal government agencies? Keep in mind that to do this, you need to watch the activities of the house, senate, and Executive branches, and monitor the rulings of the Judiciary at all levels? The bills that are going through these legislative bodies are so long that the professional full time elected representatives that vote on them don't have time to fully read and comprehend them, and they only have to worry about the laws and bills that pas through their jurisdiction.

    On top of that, the average guy still has to work a job/go to school/raise a family. I am interested in all the shenanigans happening on public office, and I freely admit to having only a cursory knowledge of things, even when I actively seek that information out.

    The real problem isn't that people are lazy or ignorant, but that there is so much happening that you cannot possibly follow it all. Calling people lazy, is well, lazy, and fails to address the real problem: The government needs to be much more open for a non-professional (politician or lobbyist) to participate.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Are people really the problem? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that most people have the time to follow in detail every piece of legislation that is run through local, state, and federal government agencies?

      No, and I never claimed that they did. I was specifically speaking of punishing the government once their corruption has been revealed (and to a large extent, it already has been).

      The real problem isn't that people are lazy or ignorant

      Ignorant? I have to say so. There should be no reason why the very same people who make up this corrupt government keep getting elected. I believe that this is a sign of deep-rooted ignorance.

      The government needs to be much more open for a non-professional (politician or lobbyist) to participate.

      I agree with this, though.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Are people really the problem? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that most people have the time to follow in detail every piece of legislation that is run through local, state, and federal government agencies?

      Welcome to the Red Herring, how many will be dining this evening?

      You don't need to understand everything your representatives do. You only need to choose a talking head out of whose mouth comes sense. This is nontrivial but not impossible. Regarding news as entertainment is how we got here. It's the people who brought us here, because they're selling what we're buying.

      The only way to fix the problem is to become a passionate proselytizer. Speak out every chance you get. Take the time to educate. Wean people off of Faux news sources and lead them to the light.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Amazon can no longer count on safe harbor by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    ISPs and other service providers are considered not to be liable for illegal content placed on their networks, precisely because they do not actively police the material. They only take action if requested to do so by the rights owners or a court order.

    As I understand the situation, if they actively police the material on their networks - as Amazon has done in this case, they surrender these protections - and must actively check for illegal material. IANAL - but it seems to me that Amazon has dug themselves a huge hole here. Any lawyers care to comment?

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  25. Money by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    They can't even handle their own server farm? What does that say about technical competence of those employed by the government?

    Nothing, really, I believe that the reason that the government is farming out hosting duties is to consolidate the thousands of little servers that are hosted and maintained by separate agencies and departments together. It is just a change to save the cost of hosting a distributed mass of servers.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  26. short term thinking by Weezul · · Score: 1

    There is a kind of 'soft power' that comes from various progressive and collaborative activities such as (1) educating foreigners here, (2) leading social reforms, (3) generally upholding the rule of law, (4) favoring shared interests over special national interests, etc. In the long run, soft power is far less expensive than hard power, plus many things can only be accomplished with soft power.

    It is corruption pure & simple when officials favor short term benefits for themselves, or their future possible employers, over the long term interests of the nation. It's clear the listed activities mostly fall into this category of weakening the U.S. soft power for short term personal gain, although some, like the U.S. pushing Sweden to press rape charges against Assange, are perhaps merely stupidity bread of desperation.

    Just fyi, people are definitely not yawning about the cables, not outside the U.S. especially. We've only scratched the surface so far, but we've had government officials fleeing their countries, major reenforcement of judicial systems, etc.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:short term thinking by icebike · · Score: 1

      LOL..., Soft Power. Such naïveté!

      Actually the only places where people are not yawning is where the cable revealed some petty personal foibles of foreign leaders, like Putin and Ahmadinejad, and those guys are simply out to defend their selves. Their populace learned nothing new.

      Nobody was surprised by anything in them.
      Go read the foreign press some time. Nobody gives a rip.

      Wikeleaks has shot their wad. The most damaging things they had the already released. Yawn.

      There are a few stories by columnists who believe in "soft power" nonsense but no government is up in arms. There is no rioting in the streets. Its totally a non issue.

       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  27. Re:No different than every other massive company.. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

    The Government IS one of their customers, and a very large one at that. Amazon is dropping a relatively minor customer in favor of a major one.

  28. act! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, salute our Fed/Amazon overl.... closed my Amazon account :)

  29. Re:No different than every other massive company.. by jmerlin · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the kind of thing we should address with good regulation. "We .. uh.. stopped your service because... uh.. one of our really big customers decided they didn't like what you had hosted.. so yeah....... buh bye." Indirect censorship is cool.

  30. Releasing shit that needed to stay secret by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    And of course you get to decide what needs to be kept secret.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Releasing shit that needed to stay secret by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      Well. Julian Asange had all the documents and could have decided to be responsible but did not.

      Oh. Wait. Nevermind. You are not looking for rational solutions. Just looking to make all who think differently from you to be fascist pigs. So there you are. I must be a government loving facist asshole that wants to keep every piece of information about the government hidden unless it was designed to fool the masses.

      Or! You are a dipshit.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  31. what do we do when we find corruption and there's by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    no WikiLeaks to post it to?

    How about reporting it to the FBI.

    1. FBI Prioritizes Copyright Over Missing Persons
    2. Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record
    3. "The Leonard Peltier Defense Committee is proud to make available, the FBI files."
    4. COINTEL PRO
    5. U.S. Lets $101 Million Verdict Stand Over FBI Frame in Mob Slaying Case
    6. J. Edgar Hoover
    7. Martin Luther King
    8. Because of J. Edgar Hoover's and others' hostility to the Civil Rights Movement, agents of the U.S. FBI resorted to outright lying to smear civil rights workers and other opponents of lynching. For example, the FBI disseminated false information in the press about lynching victim Viola Liuzzo, who was murdered in 1965 in Alabama. The FBI said Liuzzo had been a member of the Communist Party, had abandoned her five children, and was involved in sexual relationships with African Americans in the movement.

    Ad you were talking about reporting corruption to the FBI?

    Falcon

  32. I don't know about you, by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    but I'd rather the government not be spending money on maintaining an infrastructure that industry can do far more cost effectively.

    I don't know about you, but I'd rather not let the government have the power to decide what businesses do unless they're breaking a law. I'd rather not let government censor information or operate in secrecy. I'd rather not have to recite Martin Niemöller's First they came. Nor do I want to stick my head in the sand.

    Falcon

  33. Care to cite a law which backs that up. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Sure.

    Under 18 USC 793, persons convicted of gathering defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States

    I see that uses "intent" and "against". Care to prove Wikileaks intended to use the information against the USA? Having served in the US military and being a registered voter, I say what Wikileaks did was give me information on what my government has done without my knowledge.

    Falcon

  34. I agree with you on the Amazon issue, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you on the Amazon case, which is not a big deal to me either. I just don't' buy from Amazon anymore and that's it. The thing that's pissing me off is that, the triopoly of international money transfer, Mastercard/VISA/PayPal have shut off Wikileaks financially (Wikileaks is not the first). I just cancelled my VISA card, so their move only hurt retailers from outside my country. Okay, fine then. If you insist that I use one of those three you can go fuck yourself. My freedom and democracy is worth more than that.

    If you honestly mean that Wikileaks brought nothing new, then why the hell didn't you do something about all those things if you knew it before every one else? Most of us subconsciously "knew it", but you can't act on suspicion alone. Wikileaks brought the evidence to the table. Do you really like to be deceived and controlled? Can you please help me understand your motivation? Why would you prefer a system where corporations, whose only purpose is maximum profit (as you said), have more voting power than actual voters?

    It's actually an interesting thought to promote your view and see what happens. Any given business will screw you over for a better customer - just like government does it. Let's start the advertising campaign and see what happens when people are humming that slogan while shopping.

  35. look into Bill Clinton's post-Presidential career by alizard · · Score: 1

    Estimates of his net worth range from $34-200M. His net worth wasn't remotely close even to the bottom number when he became President.

    The real payoffs start for a President when he leaves office.

  36. Re:what do we do when we find corruption and there by chargersfan420 · · Score: 1

    Well done, Falcon. You've refuted my point better than I could.

    Q-Hack, maybe my tinfoil hat is on a little too tight, but if I feel I have a problem with a corrupt government, the (corrupt) government would be the last place I would turn to.

  37. Or! You are a dipshit. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Typical of trolls. Like them you can't use logic or reason. All you know how to do is call names, make disparaging remarks, or some other non-constructive thing.

    Falcon