
Amazon speaks up about WikiLeaks decision - jeremyjarvis
http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/
======
throwawayazon
There are MANY of us who work for Amazon who do not support the removal of
WikiLeaks (or the recent book-banning thing). Both cases set off long email
threads on the issue, and left the bad taste of censorship and general
mistrust in our mouths.

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

~~~
ZeroMinx
Quit. And let them know why you quit. Take a stand!

~~~
trustfundbaby
In this economy?

------
ra
The message goes beyond simply quoting ToS:

"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.

~~~
tptacek
My opinion of Amazon is improved. The position they're taking is unpopular
with the nerd crowd.

~~~
irl
> My opinion of Amazon is improved. The position they're taking is unpopular
> with the nerd crowd.

"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.

~~~
tptacek
Sorry. Not a Wikileaks fan. Been through the reasons why before on HN. Don't
blame other people for liking Wikileaks. Have lots of friends who do. Simply
don't believe it's a free speech issue with implications for everyone.

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<

~~~
ra
For me it's not an underdog issue. Although on a purely humanistic level I
can't but admire him.

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?

------
mw1
Amazon makes two claims as to why they kicked wikileaks. The first, is this
portion of their TOS: "you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise
control all of the rights to the content"

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.

------
pigbucket
Amazon is making two claims of ToS violations: 1\. "WikiLeaks doesn’t own or
otherwise control all the rights to [the] classified content the material" 2\.
Use of Wikileaks content could "cause injury to [some] person or entity"

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://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/wikileaks)

[http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wi...](http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wikileaks-
founder-julian-assange-redacted-documents?_s=PM:US)

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-
war-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-
wikileaks-human-rights-groups)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905743.html)

~~~
tptacek
It's _right there_ in the ToS. They didn't change for Wikileaks.

 _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;_

~~~
cma
So if Amazon had hosted the NYT during the Pentagon Papers releases, they
would have pulled them under that TOS? Not likely; it hasn't been legally
established that Wikileaks doesn't have the right to post what they are
posting, and in fact the NYT _is_ posting some of the same stuff this time
around.

~~~
tptacek
The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful! The only thing that was settled
was the unconstitutionality of prior restraint --- government action to
_preempt_ a publication they felt was unlawful.

~~~
irl
> The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful!

"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.

~~~
tptacek
Poor wording on my part; I wasn't alluding to the burden of proof, just to the
notion unrelated parties have of the Pentagon Papers as a legal precedent.

------
blueben
Section 105 of the Copyright Act

"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."

~~~
tptacek
That's clever but besides the point, as Amazon didn't shut WL down over
copyright violations.

~~~
blueben
Feel free to point out which rights to the content that Amazon believes
Wikileaks does not have.

~~~
tptacek
I pointed out several downthread.

~~~
blueben
You mentioned trade secrets, contracts, and then did some hand waving about
national security and state secrets. The former two are irrelevant, and the
latter two don't appear to be "content rights" as defined by the law. So my
question still stands.

------
blueben
Amazon has lawyers, and at least some of those lawyers must be experts in the
subject of copyright. It is not credible that Amazon was unaware that
Government documents are not eligible for copyright. Instead, this response
appears to be an attempt to justify the decision after it was made.

Interesting, for example, that Amazon does not deny Congressional pressure but
simply states that reports of government inquiry prompting this action are
"inaccurate".

------
bigethan
I appreciate the furstrated tone of that message.

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...](http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:http://aws.amazon.com/message/)

~~~
tzs
Off topic, but speaking of Amazon messages, there was a pretty funny press
release from Amazon in 1998, consisting of the single word "Oh".

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&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000795985&EDATE=)

[http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...](http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000796268&EDATE=)

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-...](http://news.cnet.com/Booksellers-enjoy-verbal-
jousting/2100-1001_3-217640.html)

------
snowmaker
Some of the lines of Amazon's terms, at least the way they are interpreted in
this message, should be concerning to other sites hosting on Amazon. For
example:

"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.

------
madair
"It's all just business" <\-- the unquestionable ruler of our times

~~~
wladimir
What used to be the mantra of gangsters "It's nothing personal, just
business", is now taken as an excuse for everything. Nothing to see here, look
the other way, it just business, it's how things are run.

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.

------
smoody
sounds completely reasonable to me.

i wonder if we'll see copyright symbols at the end of government cables from
now on.

~~~
tptacek
They didn't once mention copyrights. There are other legal restrictions on
publishing --- in the civil sphere, that includes trade secret law (if the
information is materially relevant to your business _and_ you take steps to
protect it) and contract law (if you're bound by a confidentiality agreement).
Obviously, the context of national security and state secrets provides many
more ways to violate this ToS.

~~~
OpieCunningham
I can't help but wonder whether you would have equivalent support for Amazon
if they were taking down a site that was hosting classified materials leaked
from Iran, China or North Korea. I suspect you'd have an issue with that.

------
DjDarkman
Ohhh Wow, Amazon is clearly not doing this because the government said so,
they are just rejecting Wikileaks for the same reason.

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.

------
JSig
This could be a great opportunity for some US hosting provider to step in and
show that it can be counted on to have a backbone and take a stand in regards
to seemingly unjust takedowns like this.

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.

------
rdl
While I don't object to amazon booting wikileaks, I don't think this message
helps. The only message I would have posted, if I posted at all, is that we
keep client customer support matters confidential to protect the privacy of
our customers, and possibly not even written it in a way which confirms
wikileaks was ever a customer.

------
BonoboBoner
"There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve
WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate."

More like:

We got another government inquiry that told us to state that we never got an
inquiry in the first place.

