Amazon Cloud Not Big Enough For Feds and WikiLeaks 204
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."
You mean there's only one cloud? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't we all making our own little clouds?
Fart jokes. They never go out of style.
Predicted future news: (Score:2)
Nepotism and corruption remain major factors in business decisions the world over.
Re: (Score:2)
And why exactly is the US gov using AWS? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] First they came [wikipedia.org]. Nor do I want to stick my head in the sand.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
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
Money (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to reconsider your comment?
Amazon Response (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon response found here [amazon.com], 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: (Score:2)
Re:Amazon Response (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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:
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but it is perfectly fine precedent for WikiLeaks to judge that they aren't putting anyone at risk.
Re:Amazon Response (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks gave The Pentagon the option to redact sensitive information, and they refused.
Pentagon actually did reply, claiming everything wikileaks had was sensitive.
/ducks
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re:Amazon Response (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the middle paragraph of my post? I specifically addressed the "250,000 documents" portion of Amazon's statement.
Re: (Score:2)
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 violat
Re: (Score:2)
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 unauth
Care to cite a law which backs that up. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 docume
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 [bookpool.com] 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
Amazon can no longer count on safe harbor (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
American company receives American pork (Score:3)
ie. non-story
Not a bad thing. (Score:2)
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.
Freedom and liberty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it is safe.
http://www.binsearch.info/?q=wikileaks&max=100&adv_age=900&server= [binsearch.info]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Must have spelled his name wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Should anybody really be supprised... (Score:5, Informative)
You are blind. Here is a short list of things you should be able to see, but cannot.
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: (Score:2)
You are blind. Here is a short list of things you should be able to see, but cannot.
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.
short term thinking (Score:2)
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 possi
Re: (Score:2)
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 col
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.eatthestate.org/top-10-economic-stories-of-2010/ [eatthestate.org]
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/exploitation-inc-david-rockefeller-and-adventures-global-finance [economicpopulist.org]
And some outstanding and general background:
http://csper.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/monopoly-money-and-the-international-banking-cartel/ [wordpress.com]
http://csper.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/global-empire-and-the-international-bankin [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right. Blame Wikileaks, not Mugabe.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Releasing shit that needed to stay secret (Score:2)
And of course you get to decide what needs to be kept secret.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 le
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Fa
This is dumb (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. That is why I believe that The people should be far more involved in government, and not be limited to mere votes.
Are people really the problem? (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 go
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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 [zcache.com] on her salary?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 d
what do we do when we find corruption and there's (Score:2)
no WikiLeaks to post it to?
How about reporting it to the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think their main motivation is to make money for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 loudl
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be under the non-monetary portion.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Govt to make money for Business (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [vimeo.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if the nutters weren't constantly polluting the discourse with their constant false cries of wolf maybe more people would?
Re: (Score:2)
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.