Amazon's official response to the Wikileaks boot from Web Services

[PeaceNikki]

http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/

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

There have also been reports that it was prompted by massive DDOS attacks. That too is inaccurate. There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) rents computer infrastructure on a self-service basis. 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. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

We’ve been running AWS for over four years and have hundreds of thousands of customers storing all kinds of data on AWS. Some of this data is controversial, and that’s perfectly fine. But, when companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn’t rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won’t injure others, it’s a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere.

We look forward to continuing to serve our AWS customers and are excited about several new things we have coming your way in the next few months.

— Amazon Web Services

They have every right to stay out of this and not put themselves or their other customers in way of any harm.

I respect their decision and will remain a loyal customer.

[EFerrari]

1. You bet they do. Just like your neighbor has every right

to keep himself and his out of harm's way when your house catches on fire.

[EmilyKent]

2. A book retailer of all things!

Books, which have been censored and burned, down through the centuries!

Fahrenheit 451 was all about books, and preserving them because they are basis for civilization.

Ideas, free speech, publishing, daring to defy the social order.

And first chance they got, Amazon dumped the whole concept and ran.

No, I won't order from them again, and I've been a steady customer for years.

:grr:

[PeaceNikki]

3. lol, they are a LOT more than a book retailer.

Did you even read their statement?

[EmilyKent]

9. Did you read mine?

I've shopped there for many years, and know exactly what they do.

However they started as a book store, and that is still their primary business.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. I agree. Amazon.com isn't the one at fault here....it's our GOVERNMENT

who's at fault for, more than likely, breaking laws of some sort and are now scrambling to cover them up. I can't wait to get the scoop on Bank of America. That's going to be good. That's when the worrying/man hunt/hacks started. When they found out the next batch of leaks was about Bank of America.....they freaked. SOMETHING HUGE is in those leaks.

The Gov is at fault, not Amazon.com. I LOVE that site.

[Lucinda]

5. Thank you! I hadn't read that.

[Luminous Animal]

6. When a news organization receives information, that information belongs to the news org.

So, Amazon is wrong and I also believe that they are lying through their fucking teeth.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

17. so if a news org gets a hold of your social security number or doctor/health files

then that information belongs to the news org and they are free to print it in their paper if they feel like it?

[mmonk]

7. That is correct. As I have started to have questions about Assange,

I started researching a lot of things. A dos based hacker attack was part of the problem. This begs the question that if Assange is so tech savvy, why has he recently been on ISP sites that aren't state of the art when it comes to security?

[jtrockville]

8. A DOS attack refers to Denial Of Service

Not the IPM-PC, which evolved into Microsoft Disk Operating System (DOS).

[Greyhound]

15. LOL!

:rofl:

[quinnox]

10. Disappointed in Amazon over this

I love Amazon, have been buying lots of stuff from them for years, but this is cowardly to boot wiki-leaks because of Government pressure. I'm not naive enough to think it was anything but that. The Obama admin told Amazon to jump and Amazon asked, How High, Sir?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

18. so Amazon should just let customers break the rules they have set without reacting? n/t

[Skip Intro]

11. I agree. K&R. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

12. And I've got every right to stop giving them my custom...

Fuck them...

[Catherina]

13. Fuck em. Assange exposed them for what they are. And the US too.

Julian Assange answers your questions

...

rszopa
Annoying as it may be, the DDoS seems to be good publicity (if anything, it adds to your credibility). So is getting kicked out of AWS. Do you agree with this statement? Were you planning for it?
Thank you for doing what you are doing.

Julian Assange:
Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

[PeaceNikki]

14. What they ARE!??! They're a private company in business to make a profit and please customers.

Gee, thanks for "exposing" that, Jules!!

lol

[Bodhi BloodWave]

20. Its amusing isn't it?

How they 'deliberately place some of their servers in jurisdictions that they suspected suffered a free speech deficit' when they knew that what they were planning to do likely was breaking some of the ground rules of the place they settled.

You'd think rules didn't apply to him :p

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I think it's more pathetic than anything...

I'm seeing what looks to be blind acceptance from some of whatever Amazon says. Amazon claims that Wikileaks published information without ensuring it wouldn't harm others, yet there's not one single example anyone can give of any specific individual being put at risk by Wikileaks. This is what Julian Assange said in the Guardian's Q&A about putting individuals at risk:

Q: Have you released, or will you release, cables (either in the last few days or with the Afghan and Iraq war logs) with the names of Afghan informants or anything else like so?
Are you willing to censor (sorry for using the term) any names that you feel might land people in danger from reprisals??

A: WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has been no credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities. This is despite much-attempted manipulation and spin trying to lead people to a counter-factual conclusion. We do not expect any change in this regard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

[lamp_shade]

16. Good for Amazon.

[WinkyDink]

19. "harm"? Bwahahaha!

[PeaceNikki]

22. The "harm" I was referring to is to their systems.

Hosting Wikileaks makes them target for attacks that could harm their business or their customers'. They were able to easily fend of DDoS attacks, but I am sure there are more types of attacks to come. Amazon has every understandable right to choose not put their business at risk.

[Renew Deal]

23. Amazon makes a good point. But...

the question is... What is Wikileaks? Are they journalists? If so, then this is wrong.

[PeaceNikki]

24. That's an interesting part of the conversation, but I still don't think it involves Amazon

Amazon is not the press. They are a retailer and eCommerce company. They have terms of service and a duty to keep their systems secure and running smoothly.