Wikileaks Booted From Amazon 528
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.'"
Right then (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
... 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...
Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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."
Re:Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it is not illegal to distribute classified information if you are a media organization. Only the person that actually had the access and who did the distribution to the journalists can be considered as doing illegal actions. And even then such claim must first be proven in court.
law is untested on redistribution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So you agree that what Wikileaks is doing is not illegal then?
There is precedent here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that what they are doing is illegal as the law is written. I also think that what they are doing is right.
Re:Can't see a reason in the Acceptable Use Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
This was done because of pure and simple political pressure.
This whole story shouldn't be about what wiki leaks did, or who got the information. It should be about what these "diplomats" were doing and saying about each other in a non-civilized fashion. Transparency is the biggest fear of the corrupt, like light to vampires.
Quite simply, what they told us about the patriot act. If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear.
Re: (Score:3)
This whole story shouldn't be about what wiki leaks did, or who got the information. It should be about what these "diplomats" were doing and saying about each other in a non-civilized fashion. Transparency is the biggest fear of the corrupt, like light to vampires.
I just posted something, and then I noticed this. Certainly worthy of a +1 Interesting mod.
Personally, I'm quite happy with the leaks. I finally get to see how diplomats represent their countries. I value accountability a lot more than secrecy. Are there secrets that are harmful to leak? No doubt. But I think secrecy should be the exception rather than the rule.
I'm particularly amazed that governments complain about the embarrassment. Don't they always tell us that if we've done nothing wrong, we've got not
Re: (Score:3)
And now iraq falls into a civil war and Iran invades it simply because they know the other muslim nations won't do anything to stop them and the USA now can't.
What if because of these leaks China now refuses to negotiate between North Korea/South Korea and let's North Korea invade South Korea?
Is that a good enough reason for secrecy?
The government does lots of things some of them are even bad, but diplomats need to be able to be trusted with information. if you can't keep a small secret how are you going t
Re: (Score:3)
You are not going to be the one in charge, wielding unlimited power and accountable to no one, so you'd better make sure that nobody else is either. A government of the people is the only way to do that. And a government of the people requires transparency.
It should also be noted that 50% of the peo
Re: (Score:3)
As an American, I think Wikileaks screwed my country.
As an American I think that the American government screwed my country by allowing diplomats to act is such a manner and not immediately revealing that information to the citizens they represent.
And really, the fact that it might strain the relationship between the US and a country who's leader is willing to claim that the country bombed itself, is really no strain at all. Plus this puts pressure on the citizens of that country to reform their own government, possibly into a government I would be more i
Re: (Score:3)
It's a wonderful World you're painting, but unfortunately we have not evolved into a no lies society.
Even though considering to state a lie would bring serious ethical concerns to me, I understand that there are some crazy people out there that must be fought.
The strategy to get them cannot be completely public, otherwise they'll be prepared. For example:
- Drug dealers, ...
- Mafia,
- North Korea,
-
This situation requires diplomacy and a secret service, to name a few. A secret service, much like undercover age
Re: (Score:3)
... It's illegal in this country to distribute this information. Amazon had a legal obligation to terminate their relationship with Wikileaks. ... It is most certainly illegal. Perhaps you should go read up on Civil Disobedience.
Please remember that disclosing classified material is only illegal if the person has a security clearance. Once the material is made public (i.e. leaked), possession of it by a non-cleared person is not a statutory violation unless, of course, that person used illegal means to obtain it (e.g. breaking and entering).
(You may have trouble with the Special Rendition team, though...)
Conceivably, though, possession AND DISCLOSURE of, say, TS/SCI information could rise to the level of treason, particularly if th
Re:More probably... (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
I'm half sure I'm contractually prohibited from saying this, but I will tell you that I know for a fact that we don't do that.
Irrelevant... (Score:3)
We are not talking laws or legality here. We are talking HOUSE RULES.
If someone with authority at Amazon finds that they MAY be breaking any of the Amazon's RULES - they can kick them out. Simple as that.
Don't like that? Get a lawyer and argue your points in court.
THEN you can call upon laws and illegality or absence thereof.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Right then (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Right then (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly sure businesses are entitled to change their minds when they realize they've made a mistake that might cost them more than they bargained for. Requiring all businesses to charge full on ahead even in the face of losses doesn't make much sense.
Re:Right then (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. A business ought to understand the risk before accepting the deal.
Amazon Web Services products are self-service. Amazon wouldn't have known that they were hosting WikiLeaks until after it was already live.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read Sonny Yatzen's first comment in this thread, you'll find his speculation that wikileaks' high load during cablegate launch was the underlying reason for amazon booting wikileaks. My comment addressed Sonny Yatzen's second comment, where he defended business entitlement to change their minds.
My argument is:
1) amazon did not boot wikileaks for high load - they actually charge per usage, so it's not really a problem to them in terms of money
2) business should not be entitled to change their minds a
Re: (Score:3)
amazon did not boot wikileaks for high load - they actually charge per usage, so it's not really a problem to them in terms of money
Amazon charges for usage in arrears (i.e. after the resource is consumed). That means AWS is extending credit to all of their customers. When businesses extend credit, there are always credit limits in order to limit potential credit losses.
Now I don't work for AWS, and I have no knowledge of the specifics of this case, but if I had a brand new customer run up a massive bill with no prior payment history, I'd cut his ass off.
Again, not saying that's what AWS did here, but it's not out of the realm of possib
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't necessarily fault those who give in to pressure from governments, pressure groups, and self-styled vigilantes. In a capitalist system they are responsible to the people who own the company to maximize return on their investment, and acting on principle often defies that.
Only when you "don't necessarily fault" them. If doing the Wrong Thing causes them to lose customers, they would be maximizing shareholder value to do the Right Thing. If doing the Wrong Thing causes everybody to say "well, that's capitalism for you" and go right on paying them, well, let's just say we're all going to die.
Re:Right then (Score:4, Insightful)
Tort law pertains to a civil wrong done through intentional tortious acts like battery, assault, or through negligence, or through defamation, or through products liability, etc. Tort damages are damages for tortious actions, not contractual ones. It has nothing to do with this situation.
Faith in reliance (properly termed detrimental reliance) is where one party performs in an agreement in reliance to the promises of another party. For example, if a party promised another party $10000 if they decide to go to college, and the other party does indeed go to college in reliance of that promise of $10000, then that is detrimental reliance. Neither Amazon nor Wikileaks performed anything in reliance of another's promise. It has nothing to do with this situation.
I do not think these terms mean what you think they mean.
In any case, I think it's hardly necessary to call me an idiot, although you are absolutely correct when you noted that the internet allows people who don't know what the "FRAK" they are talking about to post.
You are correct that it is a matter of contract law, however, as many people have noted above, there was already a breach in the contract because Wikileaks violated the Amazon AUP (a material breach, possibly). Thus, Amazon has the option to terminate performance on their side of the contract because of the material breach.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Then they shouldn't have accepted in the first place.
That is just plain hypothetical.
Oh good, I was worried that it actually happened, because then it would be hypocritical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The sequence of events the parent of that poster described IS 100% hypothetical. We simply don't know wether they were losing money over Wikileaks. So what'd be the point of saying "but MAYBE they did that, so it IS okay"?
Re: (Score:3)
If you were really a good consultant worth your wage you would do what's best for your clients regardless of your personal political agenda. You can decide what clients to take, and you certainly make choices based on your ideals when its your own business. You should make that choice and not take the client if you know you won't be able to steer them towards what is really the best solution for them.
Sure if you client wants to run a politically sensitive website you might be very correct in advising them
Re: (Score:2)
Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (Score:4, Funny)
You say that like being a whore is a bad thing.
It isn't. It's certainly a job that's more reputable than many others, such as telemarketer or Visual Basic developer.
But it's also a job many wouldn't like to exercise...
Re:they lost a goodwill with me. (Score:5, Funny)
... or Visual Basic developer.
Oh god, there are children on this site, watch your language!
Re: (Score:3)
If you were really a good consultant worth your wage you would do what's best for your clients regardless of your personal political agenda.
Freedom of speech is best for ALL of your clients. Putting them on a hosting provider which will terminate them if they elect to use their website as a soapbox is limiting their options and not in their best interest.
You should try being a professional and doing that.
You should try being a patriotic citizen, and stand up for your rights. Either you have principles or you don't. Anyone willing to compromise their "principles" never had them in the first place, they were just nice ideas they had no intention of living up to.
Not sure how I feel about this (Score:3)
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].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Right then (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Right then (Score:4, Informative)
I know that I was planning to spend money there this Christmas. Indeed I am currently returning something which arrived from Amazon damaged/defective, and now I will simply collect my refund and look for the replacement elsewhere.
I doubt they were given much choice, but they chose to bend over instead of appealing to their customer base. Even so it's probably the correct decision if not the right one.
Re: (Score:2)
I am particularly annoyed as Amazon basically solved the nuisance of present buying for me last year. This year I'm going to have to actually think. Gah!
Re: (Score:3)
Hi David,
I'm pretty sure you're in the UK. Here are some of Amazon.co.uk's rivals, who also do delivery:
It's as simple as ordering from Amazon's rivals instead of Amazon. You don't even need to move from your seat!
Isn't internet capitalism grand?
Just cancelled my order (Score:3)
IMO, not buying from Amazon is not the clearest message. A clear message is to CANCEL your already placed order and then them WHY in the cancel reason.
I am not particularly in support of WikiLeaks, but what I protest against is how Amazon simply bend over for the US Govt. It means if the US govt wants to get the book order history of me, or more likely, get the massive database of order histories of all Amazon customers, Amazon will also likely just bend over and give them that.
I have nothing to hide, but
Re: (Score:3)
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’.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Angst? There's no angst here, maybe you've been working in politics too long and now you just color what you say out of habit. As in your sideways way of calling people who disagree with you childish. The thing about politicians is they get to make statements like that and then walk away from the podium...bullshit statements like yours (and theirs) don't fly in any face-to-face conversation with any intelligent person.
And what is this "...by it's very nature needs to stand on its own" bs? You saying tha
There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
How DARE you question the motivations of a powerful Senator and corporations in general????
Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
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 d
Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the USA's elected leaders ought to be leading the world by example. Doubly so when waging wars against idealists.
Re: (Score:3)
So, do you tell your wife she "looks fat in that outfit"? Or Equivalent? Even if she is? Do you tell someone you just met that their "breath stinks", because it does?
If I felt it was appropriate to think, then it's appropriate to say. If I felt that my wife was fat I would tell her, but I have never felt that way, either when she weighed 100lbs or 200lbs. If I thought someones breath stank I would be helpful and let them know. The important thing is that in neither case would I say one thing openly and another in secret, or even in thought. Good diplomacy requires believing what you say and not just paying lip service.
Just a little advice. When you do get married,
Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>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.
Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe in an open government too, but there are limits. Wikileaks has crossed that limit.
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
Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:4)
You have a right to your opinion, and I apologize for making a comment that sounded like a personal attack.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
I just foe'd him for this practice, so I hope you're right. There's nothing worse than a lazy ideologue bot except the idiot salesdroids at Wally world.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ex
Re:There's no need to fear Joe Lieberman (Score:4, Funny)
Both of those things [i]require secrecy[/i]. Both of those things [i]require confidential communication[/i].
And /. requires HTML.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like George Galloway and his grandstanding stunts in the UK
Re: (Score:2)
Also,
Countdown to the release of the cables dated 1991-2002.
You know they're gonna be fun.
Site moved, data had not (Score:2)
I guess they were still moving data at that point.
Re:Site moved, data had not (Score:5, Interesting)
The data wasn't hosted on Amazon, only the front page.. Which makes this even weirder, they weren't even hosting the leaked material on Amazon.
No kindle for me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Mobi is a nonstandard format?
(Yeah, OK, lack of ePub puts me off Kindle too)
Re: (Score:3)
Hahaha check this out:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/18/amazon_removes_1984_from_kindle/ [theregister.co.uk]
Oh no (Score:4)
Burn fingers (Score:3)
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.
also drafted the kill switch (Score:2, Informative)
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 br
Gitmo still needed? (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
All that means is that they want to treat him like a terrorist. It's not that unique a request.
Re:Gitmo still needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that you (& many others) consider this not unique (i.e. normal) is even worse than the request itself.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Starving versus dead is not really a very water-tight argument.
"an extra 15k Iraqis died than we were officially (Score:5, Insightful)
Just read that line back to yourself a few times........ THAT is why this is important.
Thank you wikileaks.
Re: (Score:3)
What a load of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What a load of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes, but the Taliban and Bin Laden are both products of previous US meddling in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Essentially, you made them to fight the Russians.
So it's not necessarily correct to say that Afghanistan is different than Iraq. It's more that Afghanistan is in a later stage of development. Give Iraq another 30 years and they might well be just as badly off.
Get a grip (Score:3)
"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
Business & politics shouldn't mix (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, businesses, corporations, private tyrannies, they have all shown time and time again that they will destroy lives, towns, environments, etc... all for the sake of the bottom dollar. They are utterly ruthless and amoral. If corporate personhood were actually embodied in a single person, it would be a sociopathic pathology. We NEED the government as the only entity big enough, to reign in these sociopaths. This would happen, if government actually represented the people (the ideal) but until
Re: (Score:2)
So, if USA growls loudly at BBC, it will also 'become a political faction' and can be cut off from the Internet by all USA ISPs?
Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
typo (Score:4, Informative)
Correct link: MI6 operatives list [cryptome.org].
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
We straight gave OBL the money he used for 9/11, in the name of eliminating Heroin production. Anyone who still doesn't understand what's going on here is beyond help and you should consider them to be nothing more than NPCs... mobs if you will.
Re: (Score:3)
And thats how democracy goes down .... (Score:2)
Wikileaks New Home: The "James Bond" Data Center (Score:5, Informative)
Purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
"which raises the question whether this was requested by the government."
This is exactly why wikileaks exists. To answer these questions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Mistakes of Assange... (Score:5, Interesting)