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."

Comments

You mean there's only one cloud?

[countertrolling]

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.

And why exactly is the US gov using AWS?

[Ismellpoop]

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?

Re:And why exactly is the US gov using AWS?

[VGPowerlord]

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?

Amazon Response

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Amazon Response

[Ismellpoop]

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?

Re:Amazon Response

[dominion]

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.

Re:Amazon Response

[geoffrobinson]

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

Re:Amazon Response

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Amazon Response

[dominion]

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.

Re:Amazon Response

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Amazon Response

[amentajo]

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.

American company receives American pork

[mewsenews]

ie. non-story

Re:Should anybody really be supprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The bottom line of business is to make money...

[Ismellpoop]

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

This is dumb

[geoffrobinson]

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.

Re:This is dumb

[Ismellpoop]

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

Re:This is dumb

[cheekyjohnson]

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.

Re:This is dumb

[Dishevel]

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.

Re:Should anybody really be supprised...

[countertrolling]

...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?

Re:Govt to make money for Business

[TaoPhoenix]

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.

Re:Should anybody really be supprised...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.