
Wikileaks kicked out of Amazon's cloud - MikeCapone
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/12/wikileaks-kicked-out-of-amazons-cloud.ars
======
RiderOfGiraffes
Choose your news source:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959697> \- techdirt.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959655> \- cnn.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959633> \- arstechnica.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959607> \- bgr.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959335> \- npr.org

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959328> \- guardian.co.uk

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959308> \- readwriteweb.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959305> \- reuters.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959257> \- techcrunch.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959142> \- foxnews.com

~~~
wccrawford
I like the commentary on the TechDirt one:

"Look at who's complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it's
the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions."

~~~
sigzero
At this point is it really about that? I think it has gone past that point to
the criminal with Assange. I realize that isn't a popular opinion. I get what
he thinks he is trying to do and all but that isn't how the world really works
nor is it going to bend to wikileaks. Some of this stuff _should_ be secret
because that is how countries trust each other. I have no sympathy for him at
all.

~~~
redthrowaway
Read Secy Gates' response to the notion that this leak will hurt them or that
countries work with the US because they trust their interactions will be kept
secret:

[http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/11/quotable-
secretary-...](http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/11/quotable-secretary-
gates-on-wi/)

------
arvinjoar
Oscar Swartz[1] is the man behind Bahnhof, the Swedish company that Wikileaks
are using for their infrastructure needs. Oscar is a man of principle and
would never sell out to the establishment the way Amazon did.

There's acutally a bunch of swedes that are standing up for the internet as we
know it. Among them the guys over at the pirate bay. What's cool about this is
that when you have people being activists in their own ways, for a certain
cause, things tend to work out.

There's been a lot of news coverage on these things in Sweden and people got
really upset when an internet surveillance bill was passed in the swedish
parliament. So we've figured it out in Sweden, but we can't do it alone. Most
of the internet-hostile bills in Sweden are a result of EU policies, there
needs to be a wider movement in Europe.

Also, people like Joe Lieberman have to be stopped, first "the internet kill
switch" and now this? Come on, give me a break. These people are taking it too
far.

[1] = <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Swartz>

~~~
pigbucket
The Pentagon has claimed that they could have shut Wikileaks down if they
wanted to, but decided not to, reserving "that capability for threats of much
higher consequence." Generally, the rhetoric coming out of the Pentagon is not
nearly as charged as that emanating from overwrought, fear-mongering senators
like Lieberman

Senator Lieberman: "WikiLeaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have
compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No
responsible company—whether American or foreign—should assist WikiLeaks in its
efforts to disseminate these stolen materials."

Secretary of Defense Gates: "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes.
Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

Pentagon Press Sec.: "At the end of the day, as you heard from the Secretary
of Defense yesterday ... this creates some awkward and embarrassing situations
for the United States government, it clearly puts those who cooperate with us,
even some of our diplomats, in difficult positions (hopefully not endangered
situations). But, at the end of the day, it does not, at least over the long
term, adversely impact America’s power or prestige."

~~~
viraptor
> "The Pentagon has claimed that they could have shut Wikileaks down if they
> wanted to, but decided not to"

WikiLeaks the organisation, or WikiLeaks the site? I bet they can shut the
site down for most of the world simply by messing with internet routing in
crucial points. But then, what would it do? The information is sent to news
organisations directly before the public release. Torrents don't depend on
their site. Everything works like before.

If they meant WikiLeaks the organisation - that would be interesting. Who
exactly would they stop and how? I don't believe they know every source, or
there would be no serious leaks to begin with. Also, I believe that J.A. is
the same to WikiLeaks, like J.Wales is a to Wikipedia - a face, creator of
some guidelines and the ultimate moderator. Even if he disappeared, we'd see
some new leaks. He's probably not even reachable for the original sources - if
he was, finding him would be trivial, wouldn't it?

~~~
jacquesm
If they did it would put them right up there with China and their great
firewall.

------
27182818284
You can download the Pentagon Papers on your Kindle

[http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Papers-U-S-Vietnam-
Relations-...](http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Papers-U-S-Vietnam-Relations-
ebook/dp/B0038HEOL8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-
text&qid=1291247579&sr=1-1)

------
grandalf
Wow, it would be one thing if Lieberman wrote a bill to ban all US ISPs from
hosting Wikileaks content, but in this case he is simply using his clout and
acting like a thug by pressuring Amazon (an e-commerce retailer first and
foremost) right around the holiday season.

------
ck2
Homeland Security Theater - keeping you "safe" by covering your eyes.

------
mkramlich
> " _WikiLeaks'_ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our
> national security and put lives at risk around the world," he told AFP. "No
> responsible company—whether American or foreign—should assist WikiLeaks in
> its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials."

I love templatizable statements like this where you can just replace a key
slot and the result gives a refreshing clarity to the moral context of it:

" _The Bush administration's_ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have
compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world," he
told AFP. (...)

------
yters
I wonder if wikileaks outing the primary internet stakeholders (US and
industry) will cause a clamp down on the internet...

------
Mithrandir
They're back up...

------
jpcx01
Makes sense to me. Wikileaks is violating laws by posting other people's
private and classified information. Amazon has no business aiding them in
criminal activities. Free speech != exposing classified documents.

Free speech is about original content. You can say / publish whatever you want
online. But you can't take other people's content and post it, especially when
it could endanger lives.

~~~
matus
is it illegal, did for example the nytimes violate any laws? it would be good
if someone expands on this.

~~~
fwdbureau
i won't expand much, but it looks pretty simple to me: it may be illegal to
publish 'Sentence A', but reporting that someone did it is not. \- 'X is a
liar and a thief' = illegal \- 'X is a liar and a thief, says Y" = legal

