Amazon speaks up about WikiLeaks decision
aws.amazon.com
aws.amazon.com
Unfortunately, there isn't much we can do. It's not like the company is commenting on it internally or taking input from its employees. Then again, which company does?
This is the grim reality of working for a corporation - you are working for them and participate in all sorts of decision-making that benefits them greatly, but when it comes to things like this they make the decision for you and give a different meaning to a brand you helped build up.
It's starting to feel like in a country controlled by a few politicians and the corporations funding those politicians, we have no say period :(
-Disgusted Amazon Employee
"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."
If that's not taking a position, I don't know what is.
"Nerd crowd"? This is clearly a free speech issue, with implications for EVERYONE.
Amazon ostensibly doesn't trample free speech rights here because they are a non-government entity, but they had the option of standing UP for the First Amendment.
That would have been something. Not doing so... just makes them another large corporation.
Who even needs prior restraint when the government can lean on you behind the scenes? That's a chilling effect right there.
As for harm reduction, if transparency were taken up a few notches back in 2001-2002, it might have made it impossible to lie the populace into supporting the Iraq War.
I can't fault Amazon for not wanting to get on the bad side of the government, but I think that ignores the larger issue -- nobody should have to worry about hosting any documents with a legitimate free speech claim, sans a court order to remove them.
I find it extremely unlikely that Amazon was NOT responding to government pressure, but let's consider that possibility: In that case, Amazon is, of its own volition, deciding it has a pro-government-censorship position, even when the government hasn't tried to do so! They are taking a political stance against material that has a compelling claim to First Amendment protections.
The only pending legal case is against the alleged original leaker, not any of the publishers.
Every major U.S. media outlet has published at least parts of the documents. ALL of which are classified -- the information is classified, not just the verbatim reproduction.
All I can say is, the vehemence of the tech crowd's response to WL is entirely predictable. It's an underdog story, tech vs. the establishment, &c &c. Amazon could have extricated themselves from this situation without putting a stake in the ground. I respect them for making a principled decision. I share the principle, but I hope I'd feel the same if I didn't. >shrug<
Assange could have done anything with his life. Clearly he is an extraordinarily intelligent person with an ability to execute, and a belief that the general populace is being shepherded in our thinking.
I don't have a problem with that belief, nor do I have a problem with Julian putting everything on the line in an attempt to demonstrate, or at very least, test his belief.
After all, the actual leak absolutely does not constitute a breach of national security. ONLY BECAUSE, if someone is prepared to deliver wikileaks the wholesale database, can you just imagine how many less scrupulous, security cleared people (remember there are 3 million of them), are profiteering from the very same data?
You guys aren't fans of full disclosure over there? http://users.volja.net/database/matasano.PNG
It is clear that many of their customers do not own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content they host on Amazon's servers. For instance, take tarsnap or SmugMug. They both host clients' property on Amazon servers. Now, while those companies may control some of the rights to the information they are storing , it is clear that those companies do not own nor control "all rights" to that content. SmugMug cannot legally license or resell my photos to others, for example.
As for their claim that it puts people in danger, they cite not a single confirmed case where this has happened.
The claims have some merit and Amazon has the right to discontinue service on the basis of ToS violations. But they seem to be applying, in the first instance, the same criterion to this case as they would to ordinary cases of copyright infringements, which seems ethically weak and a little outlandish. And while the second claim is at least superficially more compelling, the standard seems unusually broad. Isn't it the case, if only trivially, that Amazon already hosts and sells a lot of content that could conceivably be used by someone, somewhere to cause injury to some person or entity? In general, is the content provider absolutely responsible for the uses to which its content is put, and does Amazon really want to be in the business of policing that? The argument, presumably, is that Wikileaks' documents constitute an egregious and specific possible cause of injury, although Amazon still seems to be blurring the distinction between "causing" and "making possible" or "enabling", and discounting the possible good that the release of classified documents can do. I think it's also worth pointing out that Wikileaks has adopted a fairly heavy hand with regard to redactions in the past months, and asked Amnesty and the Pentagon (apparently in vain) to help in that process. Some minimal context for Wikileaks' actions and the Amazon message, not all of which throws the best possible light on Wikileaks:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20...
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wi...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...
11.2. Applications and Content. You represent and warrant: (i) that you are solely responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of Your Content, including without limitation, the accuracy, security, appropriateness and completeness of Your Content and all product-related materials and descriptions; (ii) that you have the necessary rights and licenses, consents, permissions, waivers and releases to use and display Your Content;
"Proved" lawful? The burden of proof is not on the speaker.
The Espionage Act was just another incarnation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Thomas Jefferson wrote so passionately against.
The 1917 Espionage Act was in fact extended by the 1918 Sedition act.
[It] prohibited many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States...or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
"A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918) in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent."
Curb antiwar dissent. How much more Orwellian can you get?
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html
"Much of the Act's enforcement was left to the discretion of local United States Attorneys, so enforcement varied widely. For example, Socialist Kate Richards O'Hare gave the same speech in several states, but was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 5 years for delivering her speech in North Dakota." (Wikipedia)
"The Act was ruled constitutional in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 in 1919. Schenck, an anti-war Socialist, had been convicted of violating the Act when he sent anti-draft pamphlets to men eligible for the draft." (Wikipedia)
Note this was prior to the Supreme Court's rulings expanding their interpretation of free speech rights.
As for the Pentagon Papers:
"The Supreme Court struck down the injunctions. However, the decision was fragmented, with nine separate opinions being filed in the case. It was not clear at the time what the effect would be on future prior restraint cases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
9 separate opinions is a decent indicator you've got an unconstitutional law. Of course, Jefferson didn't need ANY supreme court justices in order to know a Sedition Act is unconstitutional on its face, and neither should you.
More accurately, they claimed several, and gave two examples. I don't think those two were meant to be an exhaustive list. For instance, content that is invasive of privacy is not allowed, and that would cover many of the items.
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
Interesting, for example, that Amazon does not deny Congressional pressure but simply states that reports of government inquiry prompting this action are "inaccurate".
Is this the only time Amazon has put out a message like this?
http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:http://aws.amazon.com/m...
Amazon had issued a press release commenting on an announcement that Barnes and Noble's acquisition of Ingram. B&N took exception to Amazon's characterization of things and made a convincing case, which prompted Amazon's contrite "Oh" response.
Here are the two Amazon releases:
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...
I have not been able to find a copy of B&N's press release other than at paid research services, although it is at least described here: http://news.cnet.com/Booksellers-enjoy-verbal-jousting/2100-...
"that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity"
Any large scale UGC site likely hosts content that might cause injury to a person or entity. This term would seem to give Amazon the right to shut down the site simply by pointing to such a piece of content.
I am not actually concerned about this, since I think that in practice Amazon operates according to far less restrictive terms than these. But it is interesting to see the rights they are reserving.
Which is a bit sad, but being amoral is a sign of the times. But if you're amoral then be amoral on everything. For example, don't be enraged to Wikileaks about deaths supposedly (and unproven) caused by things they revealed, while ignoring all the (proven) deaths caused by wars.
It's just the way things go, just business... Now go to sleep.
i wonder if we'll see copyright symbols at the end of government cables from now on.
For all I know those documents could be fake, and I don't really know how did they determine that they could put the life of people in danger...
This whole thing is like a death sentence without a trial, I can't really blame Amazon though, the government must be really stepping on their toes.
Maybe if a smaller company could scale to take on the wikileaks load, they might be able to earn trust and gain business from people that see the righteousness in the move.
More like:
We got another government inquiry that told us to state that we never got an inquiry in the first place.