Sure, it's fun to look at. But the only people who will really benefit from this being leaked are AWS competitors and malicious actors intending to disrupt international communications.
The location of Amazon data centers is not hidden from it's large competitors, or any adversary.
It turns out that each of those jobs is so costly to taxpayers that the only real benefit is for the politicians that announce the "partnerships" (and the receiving company, obviously).
Here's a couple of interesting articles on the matter:
The simple thing is to put anything you get your hands on online under the opaque umbrella of public interest. The responsible thing to do is to run with it, find the local governments in those areas and file requests for the records of any transactions to be made public. That would be in public interest. Dumping anything that has a SECRET written on it is not always a good thing.
This line of reasoning is the one that powers at be want us to partake in. It normalizes surveillance in preventing some unknown danger.
Putting AWS data centers on a map is not a danger to customers.
This has largely been an "open secret" for a long time. If you want to know where an AWS datacenter is, ask local taxi drivers and pizza delivery folks. These things are huge, and very hard to hide.
The CIA is storing massive amounts of our data somewhere, so shouldn't we have the right to know where?
I'd be more sympathetic if Amazon weren't holding a competition to see which city would give them the biggest tax breaks. It's only fair that everybody sees what other deals they're getting.
But also, voters might be interested to know if Amazon has a large mostly-invisible presence in their city.
As for the AWS information, I'd be hesitant to have my data hosted at the one in Oregon, it's right next to a bombing range! One bombing mishap...
It is not about Republicans or Democrats -- the reality is that it is operating in a way where we can all be assured it is not doing so in "our" best interest, but instead for some other nation-states purpose. Just because the party you identify with seems to be helped by something they have done recently does not mean you should take them as being honest actors.
The reality is that WikiLeaks has exposed a lot of information that we should know, I have yet to see solid evidence it's done for another nation state.
> Just because the party you identify with seems to be helped by something they have done recently does not mean you should take them as being honest actors.
Agreed, but I am also not going to believe the talking points of a party apparatus that cheated one of its own candidates. Would you?
I am not even a U.S. citizen, so I have no dog in this race, but I am well aware that both of the parties do anything to deflect from their own failures and now it's the Democrats, since they lost.
What have the Democrats done to offer a truly progressive platform, instead of the centrist one that lost them the election? Sure, they blame Russia 24/7, but that doesn't offer voters anything. Many Democrats in Congress vote with Trump and the Republicans well over 50% of the time, so this whole thing looks to me like a sham.
That simply isn't borne out by the evidence.
They whined about anti-Trump leaks. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
I don't like Trump as much as the next guy, but I think we should be consistent and all leaks should be either a.) fine b.) illegal.
If there are "sanctioned leaks", well that's super convenient for the current administration, but not for democracy.
It remains illuminatingly inconsistent that Wikileaks would oppose certain leaks.
> Currently, Amazon is one of the leading contenders for an up to $10 billion contract to build a private cloud for the Department of Defense.
Amazon aims to partner with the DoD, that makes them quasi governmental.
It's a bingo.
Why is it that whenever wikileaks leaks anything, people whine about it?
Wikileaks desires a world in which there is high competition between web service providers so none of them gets too powerful. This is consistent with their objectives.
Seriously, besides the DoD contract angle, what's the point in publishing this data?
The Google Maps tiles are labeled “Amazon Datacenter Complex” or such on at least one cluster. I don’t mean Wikileak’s pins, I mean the public rendered tiles.
Compare the locations with https://www.internetexchangemap.com/ and you'll see that most of these are just the natural locations for datacenters. Most of these locations are within a few kilometers, sometimes within a few hundred meters, of other commercial datacenters.
They generally fall within: Close to major population and finance centers with affordable power, abundant fiber, and local/state governments willing to give subsidies... like every other datacenter.
200 Paul, 528 Bryant is PAIX, 11 Great Oaks is Equinix. SV2 got shut down years ago. I don't remember AWS ever being in 3000 Corvin, which is a tiny, poorly powered data center.
As an example of how old this data is, I reported to someone in 2014 time frame that led data center operations for some AWS regions including North America. He told stories of vacating 200 Paul, I'm guessing in the pre-2010 timeframe.
In any case, none of this information is that big of a secret. It's all in the public record. It's pretty hard to build something that size and with that degree of power consumption without others noticing. There's generally plenty of news media about such things:
This made me laugh. Vandalay Industries is a reference to a very funny Seinfeld episode. Someone at AWS has a good sense of humor:
* Maybe anyone over a certain age? Do people under... I dunno, 40? 30?... watch much Seinfeld? Seems like TV shows are largely generational things... I'm aware of MASH and Dick Van Dyke, but I wouldn't get the semi obscure jokes from those shows since they were on when I was super young.
With a lot of things like this, you're really squatting at a particular point in the effort-reward curve. You're not going to make something of this scale absolutely secret; there are hundreds of people involved, deliveries of material over years, and ongoing services. It's not like Amazon can bury the workers on site after they finish their work, like people always claim the pharaohs of old did but probably didn't.
But being a little secret might solve some problems, so if there are low-effort ways to make it a little secret, you go ahead and do those. You make a shell company, even if it has a stupid name. You don't tell contractors or delivery people who the real owner is. You don't drive up to the building in a car that says "AMAZON1" on the license plate.
It's not going to keep the place totally secret, but if it makes a few things easier - you get fewer break-ins, you have fewer troubles with the local planning boards, whatever - it's probably worth the tiny bit of effort.
(Also, did you know that Dick Van Dyke is still alive and active? He's in the new Mary Poppins.)
Might you have a link to this post?
I think it's more of a joke instead of a serious attempt at keeping the ownership hidden.
It's obviously meant to be a joke.
>" Maybe anyone over a certain age? Do people under... I dunno, 40? 30?... watch much Seinfeld?"
Seinfeld is one of the most syndicated shows in television history and has been since the show ended. In some markets its on multiple times a day, it's also on Hulu. It's not really a generational thing.
The ones who would get that "Vandalay" reference? Probably <5% of them.
"Currently, Amazon is one of the leading contenders for an up to $10 billion contract to build a private cloud for the Department of Defense. [...] Bids on this contract are due tomorrow."
What a shitty service, WikiLeaks...
Security by obscurity cannot be relied upon.
I agree it's hardly a death-knell for them, it's more of a hiccup, but they didn't want this to happen.
It’s missing new regions in Ohio, Mumbai, Seoul, Canada, Paris, and GovCloud.
What a joke.
1) wants to leak them (most of the Chinese people who I've met in China, especially those who work in a government or military capacity, will bend over backwards to defend China from any level of perceived foreign criticism)
2) has the capability to leak them (most Chinese people are unlikely to know much about Wikileaks)
Wikileaks legitimately may not be in a position to acquire such documents to leak. My understanding is that they mainly distribute documents provided to them by others, and has never exercised much editorial discretion. If Wikileaks is best known in the US/Western Europe, it'll likely only acquire documents related to those regions.
For a Chinese person to leak documents about Xinjiang to Wikileaks, that person must first know about them, then be able to contact them, then be able to send the documents to them. I wouldn't be surprised if Wikileaks itself is blocked by the Great Firewall, and that its typical communication channels for leakers are blocked and/or difficult to use from the PRC, which makes the whole process doubtful.