Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet Your Rights Online

Wikileaks Booted From Amazon 528

Posted by samzenpus
from the you're-outta-here dept.
dakameleon writes "Wikileaks has been booted from its Amazon hosting, and has now shifted to being hosted in Europe. Senator Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement, 'This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the WikiLeaks website,' which raises the question whether this was requested by the government. Senator Lieberman said Amazon's decision to cut off WikiLeaks 'is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Booted From Amazon

Comments Filter:
  • Right then (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:01AM (#34415838)

    Nice that amazon have shown their colours... I shall no longer trade with them. Vote with your wallet, it's the only way they'll learn.

    • Re:Right then (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:05AM (#34415866) Journal

      I think it's substantially more likely that they booted Wikileaks because:
      1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS
      2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs
      3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)

      I don't think it's fair to expect Amazon to keep them on even in the face of potentially high losses. Businesses are in the business of making money, after all, and this is just a financial no brainer.

      • More probably... (Score:5, Informative)

        by denzacar (181829) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:25AM (#34416020) Journal

        ... they were taken down for violating Amazon's "Acceptable Use Policy":

        http://aws.amazon.com/aup/ [amazon.com]

        No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content

        You may not use the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, or offensive. Prohibited activities or content include:

                * Illegal Activities. Any illegal activities, including advertising, transmitting, or otherwise making available gambling sites or services or disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography.
                * Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Activities that may be harmful to our users, operations, or reputation, including offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions (e.g., make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming), or engaging in other deceptive practices.
                * Infringing Content. Content that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property or proprietary rights of others.
                * Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable, including content that constitutes child pornography, relates to bestiality, or depicts non-consensual sex acts.
                * Harmful Content. Content or other computer technology that may damage, interfere with, surreptitiously intercept, or expropriate any system, program, or data, including viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, or cancelbots.

        All attributes marked above could be argued by any of the parties affected by the leaks.

        My favorite is "being offensive".
        Fuck. I could demand 90% of the Internet to be turned off permanently on account of that alone.
        You see, I'm very easily offended by a wide variety of things.

        And don't you get me started on otherwise objectionable. Cause... Oh boy...

        • by dmcq (809030) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:47AM (#34416228)
          Well I had a read of the Acceptable Use Policy above and I can't see any grounds under that unless you include embarrassing officials as offensive. They're doing nothing illegal, mainly it's a question of extent compared to what newspapers do every day of the week. I guess they must have an 'or any other reason why' clause somewhere or else have just done it knowing they won't be sued.
          • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:29AM (#34416706)

            I had a read of the Acceptable Use Policy above and I can't see any grounds

            You missed unwritten rule #13: "Any content that could get us a bunch of shit from the government or our shareholders, or interfere in any way with our ability to make fuckloads of money, is considered offensive and will be removed."

        • by AigariusDebian (721386) <aigariusNO@SPAMdebian.org> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:53AM (#34416316) Homepage

          Hey, Amazon! You front page is offensive to me and all other people in the world who hate Christmass shopping season. Take it down, now!

      • Re:Right then (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:30AM (#34416076)

        1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS

        No, that was the US Government.

        2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs

        Are you really suggesting that denying service to minorities is an acceptable cost saving measure?

        3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)

        Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?

        Let me get this straight. Amazon is doing evil, but it's a solid business decision so we shouldn't hold it against them?

        I don't quite follow that.

        • Re:Right then (Score:4, Insightful)

          by iron-kurton (891451) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:48AM (#34416952)

          Are you really suggesting that denying service to minorities is an acceptable cost saving measure?

          Is this a serious question? Businesses are interested in getting the biggest ROI and therefore cut services that aren't profitable. This happens all the time outside of your armchair rights-activist circles. Amazon isn't offering hosting services so you can feel warm and fuzzy about the world - it's offering services to make cold, hard cash. Why should they bleed money and risk a nasty litigation process without any potential return on investment? Wikileaks came and it will go, and most people outside of civil liberty circles will forget about it in 3-6 months (which may be a gross overestimate). This really is a no-brainer on Amazon's part.

          Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?

          What should Amazon do, in your opinion? Drag this out on principle, lose a bunch of money or cut Wikileaks' legally dubious services? Sounds simple to me. Show me a company that wouldn't cut Wikileaks under these circumstances*, and I will show you a company that will be bankrupt soon. *the only alternative is what they already did: move the servers to a country that offers some kind of safe-harbor against this.

        • by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) <marc,paradise&gmail,com> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @11:10AM (#34418174) Homepage Journal

          1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS

          No, that was the US Government.

          Weren't you listening? It was the jester! ;)

          2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs

          Are you really suggesting that denying service to minorities is an acceptable cost saving measure?

          Wait, what? I think he's not *suggesting* anything, but rather *saying* that if a client costs significantly more money than it earns a business, that business is within its rights to terminate services to that client. But that was an interesting spin you put on it. In this context, most amazon customers are minorities in that each is just one customer among many others; and in that they most have considerably fewer resources than Amazon does. (That's... um, why they're customers and not doing this themselves...)

          3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)

          Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?

          You do a fine job of twisting words . You know that amazon also disallows hosting of child porn - I suppose that's pretty discriminatory too. When you discard the emotionally-loaded context you're attempting to build, Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination: "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things."

          In this case, perceiving the difference between a customer costing money and reputation -- and then choosing to act by terminating that account.

          Let me get this straight. Amazon is doing evil, but it's a solid business decision so we shouldn't hold it against them?

          I don't quite follow that.

          Nobody said not to hold it against them- only that it makes sense from a financial and PR perspective. If this was the wrong decision to make, then they'll pay the price as people terminate their Amazon service agreements. It's pretty neat, how having competition ensures plenty of options when a business makes the wrong choice.

      • Re:Right then (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AlXtreme (223728) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:40AM (#34416170) Homepage Journal

        With AWS EC2/S3 you pay for bandwidth. Considering the amount of traffic I don't think this has anything to do with high costs (or perhaps Wikileaks racked up a huge bill due to the DDOS and couldn't pay). I would like to see a reaction from Amazon.

        This shows what can happen if you host your business "in the cloud" and the cloud doesn't like your business, though this is an extreme example. As I recall they were booted from regular hosters before...

    • by suso (153703) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:05AM (#34415872) Homepage Journal

      As owner of a hosting provider myself and the talks about the DDoS and such, I can see why a hosting provider might want to rid themselves of a problem that would cause issues for other customers, but at the same time, isn't Amazon big enough? At least everyone likes to say how big they are. Where are those zealots now? Some people are realizing that corporations are in control of freedom of speech, not the government. Well that's nothing new [suso.org].

      • by JackieBrown (987087) <dbroome@gmail.com> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:19AM (#34415972)

        Some people are realizing that corporations are in control of freedom of speech, not the government.

        Freedom of speech protects us from infringement from the government, not other people or corporations.

        • by leehwtsohg (618675) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:55AM (#34416338)
          And what if the government pressures a corporation to not allow you to speak?
        • by Anon-Admin (443764) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:01AM (#34416408) Homepage Journal

          I can not believe people rate the above statement so high.

          "Freedom of speech protects us from infringement from the government, not other people or corporations."

          Freedom of speech is FUCKING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I dont know about you but my Freedom of speech is given to me by my creator.

          The protection is the first amendment to the constitution states

          "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

          However, the 10th amendment states

          "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

          Tell me, where do I give up my sovereign rights to a corporation or you or any other want to be dictator?

          My "Freedom of Speech" if Mine, given by my creator, to use as I see fit! If you dont like it you can try to take it from me. Then again I also have a right to use guns and to shoot your ass for trying.

    • Re:Right then (Score:5, Interesting)

      by David Gerard (12369) <{ku.oc.draregdivad} {ta} {todhsals}> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:19AM (#34415980) Homepage

      It was a headline story in this morning's Metro (a freesheet read by approximately everyone in London going to work on the tube): people boycotting Amazon for kicking Wikileaks off.

      Possibly not the best meme to have propagating when people are attempting to one-click their Christmas shopping.

    • by Stellian (673475) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:25AM (#34416024)

      Nice that amazon have shown their colours

      The color in question being green.
      It's a simple case of a messenger defecting from his duty in a primitive world that no longer adheres to the "don't kill the messenger" principle.

      By all means, hunt Assange like Osama, seize the Wikileaks domains with ICANN’s help, DDoS Europe and use Palin’s fat ass to plug the internets. It’s the patriotic ‘right decision’.

    • by Q-Hack! (37846) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:35AM (#34416122)

      Nice that amazon have shown their colours... I shall no longer trade with them. Vote with your wallet, it's the only way they'll learn.

      Never been one to do much business with amazon before, guess I will have to, as you put it "Vote with your wallet", and start shopping with them.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:03AM (#34415850) Journal

    "If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't object to us searching you car, or home, or spying on your internet."

    You've been telling us that for years Mr. Senator. Are you now saying you no longer believe that? Hmmm. First you spied on us, and performed unconstitutional/illegal searches ... and now WE are spying on you. The wheel turns does it not Mr. Politician?

    Fucking asshole.

    • by digitaldc (879047) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:06AM (#34415876)
      Please report to the nearest thought police station for your thought crimes.

      How DARE you question the motivations of a powerful Senator and corporations in general????
    • by Ieshan (409693) <ieshan.gmail@com> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:15AM (#34415952) Homepage Journal

      This is the most ridiculous sentiment to come out of this entire thing.

      Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world. Diplomacy allows countries to resolve conflicts and solve problems without throwing bombs at each other. And, you want other countries, your allies, to be able to approach your country with issues about their own security from threatening neighbors, without necessarily throwing gasoline on the flames.

      Both of those things [i]require secrecy[/i]. Both of those things [i]require confidential communication[/i].

      It may be true that the US Government (and ALL governments) do things that overstep the bounds of power. But all diplomacy and negotiations require some measure of confidence, and all alliances require the ability to have confidential communication.

      This leak wasn't about exposing some massive corruption about the US putting drugs in the water supply. It was about releasing a bunch of documents, mostly about either relatively mundane topics or communications between countries or embassies.

      Strong diplomacy is worth the secrecy that comes with confidential communication. Jeopardizing that to "fight the man" is certainly criminal and probably insane.

      • by rastos1 (601318) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:23AM (#34416004) Homepage

        Presumably, you want your government to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

        Care to specify where are the boundaries of this region in case of USA government?

        Ah don't bother. The answer is right here [wikileaks.org]:

        To be a real power, Patten said, a country must be ready and able to adopt and implement a policy, even if the rest of the world considers it unwise. Europeans may agree or disagree with US policy, but they admire that the US is ready to carry out the policies it thinks best, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. Under this yardstick, the EU will never be a "real power" because there is always someone in the room who is overly cautious, and will insist on looking at matters "sensibly."

        • by Dhalka226 (559740) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @10:50AM (#34417848)

          So what? He's right. Substitute the word "leader" for "power" -- all he's saying is that a leader does what he thinks is best and not necessarily what is most popular. Since it's quote day, one from Rosalynn Carter: "A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."

          It is, in essence, the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy: Do we want things determined by a poll ("the will of the people") or do we want to elect people we believe will make the right decisions even if we disagree?

          I remember a quote from Tony Blair back when the Iraq War stuff was just starting: "There is a tendency for the world to say to America, "the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out," and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." In fact, we see some of the truth of this in the leaked cables: Saudi Arabi, Israel, Jordan, the United Arab Emerits -- all asked us to bomb the crap out of Iran. They did so behind closed doors for various reasons, but they did so. Do you really believe they are the only countries that do or that this is the only issue they talk about?

          That's not to say that everything a leader (or the US) does is correct, or that it is always an attempt at pure practicality and not, consciously or unconsciously, an attempt to further self-interest, but yes, the definition of a leader--the definition of power--is to, you know, lead. Leaders don't ask where we'd like to go and followers don't have the power afforded to a leader. If it takes a leaked cable for people to realize that, that's hardly a failing of the person who said it or the country who didn't.

      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:25AM (#34416028) Homepage Journal

        Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

        I want my country to influence the whole world positively. Lies only beget more lies, they do not bring lasting peace.

        • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:37AM (#34416134) Homepage

          Yep, the USA's elected leaders ought to be leading the world by example. Doubly so when waging wars against idealists.

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:29AM (#34416062) Journal

        >>>Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

        You presume wrong.

        I don't give a fuck about what happens outside US territory. What I want is a government that is weak w/ most of the power belonging to the people ("every man a king of his own domain"). Secrecy of things like COICA (copyright/three-strike law) and ACTA (more copyright protection but on the global scale) that affect citizens is bullshit. It should be out in the open, not hidden, otherwise representative government Can Not work.

        What you are supporting is basically a return to the European Dark Ages, where the leaders operated in the dark without the people's knowledge, and the citizens were just pawns in their leader's games.

        • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:30AM (#34416724)

          I don't give a fuck about what happens outside US territory.

          Makes sense, so long as you're A-OK with the US:

          *Having no exports

          *Having no imports

          *Being completely prone to a Pearl Harbor type surprise attack at any time

          Also, this stance requires that the rest of the world respect your decision and leave you completely alone.

          You're proposing that the US be the crazy hermit who moves into the woods and doesn't talk to anybody. Unfortunately, isolationism as you describe never works, because the real world always intrudes. We tried it a few times, if you recall from history class.

          The fact is, we need treaties, for trade and defense. Those treaties require confidentiality, at a minimum so we can respect the confidences of others with respect to other countries they don't like. While I certainly don't approve negotiations designed to keep the people in the dark (ACTA), it's a false dichotomy to suggest that *all* secrets are bad.

        • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:39AM (#34416844)

          I believe in an open government too, but there are limits. Wikileaks has crossed that limit.

          I don't give a fuck about what happens outside US territory.

          Yes because we don't exist in a global economy. I guess the internet shouldn't exist outside of the US. Why do we put up with all those foreigners offering their opinion? Why do we reach out and provide disaster aid to foreign countries? Why should we care about Afghanistan?

          We learned a lot from the Great Depression and World War II. 1) An economy can't grow with an isolationist agenda. 2) Global conflicts grow worse when we ignore the conflicts outside our borders.

          What I want is a government that is weak w/ most of the power belonging to the people ("every man a king of his own domain").

          I think we all aspire to some form of this government. Unfortunately what most people really mean is a "Government that is operated in a manner that *I* agree with". They tend to forget that there are over 307 million people who may want to see the government act in a different manner.

          Secrecy of things like COICA (copyright/three-strike law) and ACTA (more copyright protection but on the global scale) that affect citizens is bullshit. It should be out in the open, not hidden, otherwise representative government Can Not work.

          I agree all laws should be open since 1) How can our representatives act on our behalf if we don't know what's going on? 2) Secret laws are almost always secret because it's really a bad law.

          I noticed you bring up COICA and ACTA. The diplomatic cables have more to do with more pressing diplomatic matters, but it does offer clues on why you're a libertarian. Which brings me back to my previous point... Luckily for the rest of us, more people don't want a weak government just so commodore64_love can download and share copyrighted files.

          • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:48AM (#34416946)

            I noticed you bring up COICA and ACTA. The diplomatic cables have more to do with more pressing diplomatic matters, but it does offer clues on why you're a libertarian. Which brings me back to my previous point... Luckily for the rest of us, more people don't want a weak government just so commodore64_love can download and share copyrighted files.

            You have a right to your opinion, and I apologize for making a comment that sounded like a personal attack.

      • "Both of those things [i]require secrecy[/i]. Both of those things [i]require confidential communication[/i]."

        I can tell you've been cutting and pasting this text by the incorrect markup syntax.

      • by suso (153703) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:38AM (#34416144) Homepage Journal

        leshan, I understand the point of your argument and I've heard others make this case. It certainly sounds logical, but it seems to forget the fact that the governments (all of them) should be to the point of serving their people. Even when we are being diplomatic with other countries, the point is usually to help their people (not their government) or to help our people. The point of view that the government should have secrets that should be kept from everyone seems like you think the government should exist as a separate entity with its own self interests and that really couldn't be any further from the founding doctrines of most of today's democracies.

        Obviously governments have major things to hide. Obviously. And obviously what is said to the public can be in complete disagreement with what really happens. But I think its good to unravel all that once in a while so that you can reset the board and we can all really see what is going on. Otherwise its too hard for the citizens to know what is up and what is down.

      • by vgerclover (1186893) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:28AM (#34416686)

        Both of those things [i]require secrecy[/i]. Both of those things [i]require confidential communication[/i].

        And /. requires HTML.

    • by mjwalshe (1680392) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:52AM (#34416306)
      but according to wikipedia hes effectively left his party by supporting the republican candidate for president why has he still got any political power why did not the dems kick him out at that point.

      This is like George Galloway and his grandstanding stunts in the UK
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:04AM (#34415860)
    I clicked on wikileaks site last night just to see if it worked. The main page worked but when you clicked on a link about the Diplomatic Cables, it re-directed me to a graphical chart page which had nothing to do with it.

    I guess they were still moving data at that point.
  • No kindle for me.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:05AM (#34415868)

    I was actually considering buying a Kindle despite its nonstandard format, but this makes me reconsider..
    If they cave this easy, how can I trust that they won't remotely remove any books the US government deems undesirable?

  • by lyinhart (1352173) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:07AM (#34415884)
    Guess it's gonna be harder for Wikileaks to find a host for politically relevant, shocking revelations such as Nicolas Sarkozy chasing a rabbit around the office [bbc.co.uk].
  • by tsa (15680) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:08AM (#34415890) Homepage

    If I were Amazon I would not want to burn my fingers on hosting something as controversial as Wikileaks. Amazon is a company after all, and they can miss trouble like toothache.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:09AM (#34415904)

    From Lieberman's wikipedia page,

    "On June 19, 2010, Lieberman introduced a bill called "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010",[75] which he co-wrote with Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE). If signed into law, this controversial bill, which the American media dubbed the "Kill switch bill", would grant the President emergency powers over the Internet. However, all three co-authors of the bill issued a statement claiming that instead, the bill "[narrowed] existing broad Presidential authority to take over telecommunications networks".[76]"

  • Gitmo still needed? (Score:5, Informative)

    by rastos1 (601318) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:09AM (#34415906) Homepage
    There are people that do not follow the current events around wikileaks because they consider it un-interesting. They should [telegraph.co.uk]:

    "We are also investigating whether the prosecutor's application to have Mr Assange held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners - again a unique request - is in any way linked to this matter and the recent, rather bellicose US statements of an intention to prosecute Mr Assange."

    Emphasis mine.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:12AM (#34415920) Homepage

    The majority of the classified information they've dump has been the sort of shit that the federal government produces in reams and forgets about. It's not "whistle-blower grade" materials like the Pentagon Papers. All it's likely to do is make the politicians more paranoid and to impose security theater on federal agencies. There's already enough of that within the federal government itself. The last thing we need is more.

    What Wikileaks needs to do is focus on stuff like exposing Bank of America which it says it plans to do. What the big banks have done to this country and world is actually worse than what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their behavior has quite literally crippled the ability of the housing market in the US to function, ever, without radical political intervention [codemonkeyramblings.com] to clean up the title disputes, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. It's more likely than not that their manipulations have us on the precipice of a depression that is far worse than the Great Depression. Sure, we found out that an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially told; the big banks have laid the foundation for an economic environment in which a lot of people in our own country may very well starve to death before it's all said and done.

    If Assange's goal really is to clean house, then there are many targets that are softer, more inviting and more damning when exposed than most of what Wikileaks has accomplished with the DoD. If I had his ear, I'd tell him to go after Goldman Sachs. Go for the mother load of information from them. Get someone to hand over all of the server logs of communications between them and federal officials. Or better yet...

    Target the Federal Reserve.

    • by Eil (82413) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:32AM (#34416098) Homepage Journal

      Sure, we found out that an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially told; the big banks have laid the foundation for an economic environment in which a lot of people in our own country may very well starve to death before it's all said and done.

      Starving versus dead is not really a very water-tight argument.

    • by SomethingOrOther (521702) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:40AM (#34416168) Homepage
      Sure, we found out that an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially told

      Just read that line back to yourself a few times........ THAT is why this is important.
      Thank you wikileaks.
      • Yes, and almost all of them were killed by their own people. Some things don't change. Before they had Saddam Hussein and his government killing people, now it's extremist groups. That leak actually provided more rationale for the U.S. remaining in Iraq (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying that the consequences of these leaks is far more complex than people think). It's the same thing with this cables leak - it gives more justification for overthrowing Iran's government (that's something many of the Arab nations want the U.S. to do) as well as North Korea's (that's something that China wouldn't stop; they might just even encourage it). Further, most of the leaked cables are far more condemning of other countries than they are of the U.S. Lastly, there will likely be more secrecy now with fewer paper trails.

        Governments need some secret dealings (not as much as we have) but one of the problems with Wikileaks is that we cannot predict the consequences. Sure, some consequences will be positive but some will be negative. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? We won't know for many years.
    • by copponex (13876) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:03AM (#34416434) Homepage

      What the big banks have done to this country and world is actually worse than what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan

      No, a hundred thousand people killed by a country with no right to even be in their hemisphere is a million times worse than the loss of economic productivity. Not one single Iraqi ever physically harmed an American outside of their sovereign border. The same goes for the Afghani people.

      And you wonder why no one has respect for the American culture anymore? Go fuck yourself.

      • by dogmatixpsych (786818) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @10:28AM (#34417530) Homepage Journal
        "Not one single Iraqi ever physically harmed an American outside of their sovereign border." I'd like to see your proof for that universal and categorical negative. Further, almost all of the Iraqis killed were killed by other Iraqis and not NATO troops (there isn't a great source for that statement but here are two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War [wikipedia.org]; http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ [iraqbodycount.org]). As for how many Iraqis Saddam Hussein killed? Estimates rage from the high 100 thousands to the millions: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07MAKIYA-t.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=310195565a77e9ff&ex=1349409600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [nytimes.com].

        You may or may not agree with the war in Iraq (I certainly don't) but what is occurring cannot compare to what occurred before.
        • by copponex (13876) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @10:41AM (#34417698) Homepage

          I'd like to see your proof for that universal and categorical negative.

          I made the falsifiable assertion. It's up to you to disprove it.

          You may or may not agree with the war in Iraq (I certainly don't) but what is occurring cannot compare to what occurred before.

          Surely it can. The low estimates of Iraqi casualties in both cases are about 100,000, and at least a few studies (like the Lancet) put direct and indirect deaths in Iraq well above 500,000 since 2003.

          Of course, most of the deaths of innocent Iraqis are due to four things:

          1) Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 1991 while he was an official ally and client of the United States.
          2) The Iran-Iraq War, which was supported by the United States after we removed Iraq from the State Sponsors of Terror list in 1982.
          3) Embargoes from the UN from 1991 until 2003 which were pushed and supported by the United States.
          4) The invasion of Iraq by the United States from 2003 until the present.

          So, that's about thirty years of death and suffering due to our geopolitical chess game. Which doesn't at all compare to any financial shenanigans committed by Americans on other Americans.

    • by natophonic (103088) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:24AM (#34416644)

      "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed or critically injured, and those that weren't are living in worse conditions than under Saddam Hussein's rule, but I'm 10% underwater on the suburban McMansion I bought in 2006.... I'm the victim I tell ya!"

      Target the Federal Reserve.

      And buy gold coins to bury in your backyard!

      We're not in Great Depression II. We're not even as bad off as in the 1970's. Lots of people are really hurting economically, through little or no fault of their own, and they do need help. I agree that the "too big to fail" banks are culpable, but the only way lots of people in the US are going to starve is if the "de-regulate everything" and "drown government in a bathtub" folks get their way.

  • by captainpanic (1173915) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:12AM (#34415928)

    I know it happens all the time.. but I strongly believe that business shouldn't get involved in politics, and politics should not get involved in business.

    Because of the strong opposition from especially the USA, Wikileaks has become a political faction (rather than just media)... the line between media and politics is thin anyway.

    so, it's a good decision for Amazon to break all ties with Wikileaks. It's just that the timing makes it a political decision in itself.
    The USA growled so loudly about wikileaks that a lot of organisations that wouldn't care about it now chose that it's wiser to be against wikileaks.

  • Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chrb (1083577) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:22AM (#34415998)

    When the MI6 operatives list [slashdot.org] was being mirrored by American citizens, MI6 said that it would "endanger the lives of agents", and yet the U.S. government did not take down any web sites, and American citizens were not threatened with prosecution for publishing the list. Now an Australian citizen releases data that the U.S. government would rather didn't see the light of day, and U.S. politicians are calling for censorship, internet kill switches, and executions and assassinations of everybody involved [telegraph.co.uk]. If China or Russia did the same, these politicians would be crying crocodile tears for the death of freedom. Hypocrites.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @08:26AM (#34416046) Homepage Journal
    not even with thunderous applauses. with some senators prosecuting those who give information to the public, and some private companies obeying. all is well.
  • by 1sockchuck (826398) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:41AM (#34416872) Homepage
    Netcraft has been tracking the shifts in Wikileaks' infrastructure, and notes today [netcraft.com] that one of its post-Amazon hosts is Swedish ISP Bahnhof Internet, which operates the "James Bond Villain" data center [datacenterknowledge.com] housed in a nuke-proof bunker 100 feet beneath Stockholm.
  • Purpose (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Atzanteol (99067) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @09:47AM (#34416936) Homepage

    "which raises the question whether this was requested by the government."

    This is exactly why wikileaks exists. To answer these questions.

When I left you, I was but the pupil. Now, I am the master. - Darth Vader

Working...