No thread about the new WIKILEAKS United States diplomatic cables leak?

[DaShi]

I find it very amusing that if there were leaked information from the Chinese government being suppressed in China, Americans would bask in their "freedom" and talk about how much of a ****hole China's authoritarian government is.

When their own government (and 'patriotic' supporters in the private sector) does the same thing, it's for the good of all.

So the American citizens need to set themselves to the same standards as the Chinese government?

[Asher]

They need to realize that freedom of speech is something to be valued at all times, not when it is just convenient.

[Hauldren Collider]

It seems that US diplomats are Batman nerds:

Medvedev is Robin to Putin's Batman.
Canada is Robin to America's Batman.
North Korea is the Joker to America's Batman. (Ok, this one I made up. Hey! Maybe I could be a diplomat.)

Anymore Batman references found?

Dude, batman is ****ing awesome. If anything they aren't referencing him enough.

[Hauldren Collider]

I want to reiterate to Asher that the US government has no legal authority to require the companies to take down Wikileaks. They are doing so of their own volition. There is a lot of SCOTUS precendence on this issue. These companies also have policies about not hosting neonazism or white supremacy. Part of freedom is that the government can't require these companies to accept any customers.

There are companies in the US that would be willing to host Wikileaks.

[Asher]

I want to reiterate to Asher that the US government has no legal authority to require the companies to take down Wikileaks. They are doing so of their own volition.

You're naive as all hell if you don't think there are behind-the-scenes way the US government has to coerce people and companies to do as they please.

Amazon was perfectly fine hosting the site until Joe Lieberman and other US politicians called them.

These companies also have policies about not hosting neonazism or white supremacy.

Do they? I never saw that in the Amazon AWS ToS I signed twice. Quote it?

[Hauldren Collider]

You're naive as all hell if you don't think there are behind-the-scenes way the US government has to coerce people and companies to do as they please.

Amazon was perfectly fine hosting the site until Joe Lieberman and other US politicians called them.

Joe Lieberman can ***** all he wants, there is tons of precedent for newspapers and websites not doing what congressmen ask. Amazon did it because of pressure from public opinion, sure, but the government wouldn't have the legal authority to do anything. It's plausible that some federal department could find some unrelated thing to fine Amazon for as punishment, but that would be little more than a slap on the wrist for Amazon not to mention fairly unlikely, especially given that Republicans have stated intent to scrutinize these fines in the next Congress. Point is, this isn't even close to a Hobson's choice for Amazon. The most dangerous consequence would be citizens boycotting Amazon for continuing to host a website they deem anti-American.

Do they? I never saw that in the Amazon AWS ToS I signed twice. Quote it?

Even if they don't it doesn't matter--I'm sure there is something in there about them being able to cancel your service for any reason at any time. Amazon is perfectly within its rights to do whatever it wants with Wikileak's hosting. When you buy service from Amazon, you agree to the understanding that if your site pisses people off they can and will take it down.

[Asher]

Joe Lieberman can ***** all he wants, there is tons of precedent for newspapers and websites not doing what congressmen ask.

Again, I don't think you realize how much hell a government can put a business through if they so choose.

The fact that SOME companies in SOME industries in SOME situations choose to ignore government threats doesn't mean they didn't happen or that they're not extremely coercive in some situations.

Amazon did it because of pressure from public opinion, sure, but the government wouldn't have the legal authority to do anything. It's plausible that some federal department could find some unrelated thing to fine Amazon for as punishment, but that would be little more than a slap on the wrist for Amazon not to mention fairly unlikely, especially given that Republicans have stated intent to scrutinize these fines in the next Congress. Point is, this isn't even close to a Hobson's choice for Amazon. The most dangerous consequence would be citizens boycotting Amazon for continuing to host a website they deem anti-American.

You still do not get it.

It's not about a fine. The government can do far worse things to Amazon -- federal laws can be changed to Amazon's detriment (and to the benefit of local businesses, as some lobby groups want). They can be put through VERY EXTENSIVE audits which are extremely resource-intensive for the company. They can have the FCC, etc drag their feet in approving new Amazon products (like Kindle models, etc).

If these leaks have shown us ANYTHING, it's that the government isn't as goody-goody as you think it is.

Even if they don't it doesn't matter--I'm sure there is something in there about them being able to cancel your service for any reason at any time. Amazon is perfectly within its rights to do whatever it wants with Wikileak's hosting. When you buy service from Amazon, you agree to the understanding that if your site pisses people off they can and will take it down.

AGAIN. This is not about illegal hosting. Amazon could legally host it, Amazon could legally kick them off, the US cannot legally force them to do it.

You are missing the points completely.

[Asher]

Another example: I was once pulled over while moving, I had my car FULL of stuff. Cops pulled me over under the pretense that I had an "illegal licenseplate cover", which I knew not to be true. I was in the middle of nowhere, well beyond anywhere I'd ever come again.

The cops told me that it's a frequent drug running route, and they would like to search my car.

I told them I'm on a schedule, I'm not carrying any drugs (just moving), etc. They told me they would still really like to search my car, but they need my consent. They also HEAVILY implied that if I did not permit them to search my car, they would have to "keep an eye" on me for suspicious behaviour (probably follow me and find any possible excuse to do it, or write me up questionable tickets for traffic violations). They also heavily implied they would write me a $400 ticket for "obscuring my licenseplate" with my 100% clear plastic cover. I protested that that's not against the law, they told me (with a sly smirk :mad) ) that I'd be more than welcome to fight the ticket in local court. They knew very well I didn't live in the area and my destination was a ~2 day drive away.

It's an example of the government coercing someone to permit something they do not legally have a right to do, because the consequences of not doing it can be greater.

[giblets]

Is it just me, or does the determination of the US government to stop Wikileaks only bolster the website's legitimacy? The fact that the government wants Wikileaks gone confirms that Wikileaks isn't run by some loon who just makes stuff up. Wouldn't it be smarter for the government to claim the leaks are fake?

[The Mad Monk]

Americans might not care but most Americans don't care what happens outside of their front door. It's generally a bad thing when you are caught spying on your allies.

That's a very silly sentiment, especially when it has nothing to do with "spying". I am more chagrined to realize that such an order as "collect boigraphical and biometric data" needs be given at all, since it's a basic diplomatic function.

[notyoueither]

I've read that Amazon is claiming wikileaks was kicked due to terms of service. Something about not causing harm, and there are grounds to believe that some of the disclosures will result in harm to innocent people who are mentioned in the documents.

[Asher]

No, they mean "harm" to their other customers -- impacting their level of service.

Amazon is claiming they kicked them off because they were targets of a DDoS attack, which saturated their datacentre bandwidths and impacted the site performance for their other customers.

Wikileaks' DNS provider just said the exact same thing as their reason for booting them.

[Hauldren Collider]

Another example: I was once pulled over while moving, I had my car FULL of stuff. Cops pulled me over under the pretense that I had an "illegal licenseplate cover", which I knew not to be true. I was in the middle of nowhere, well beyond anywhere I'd ever come again.

The cops told me that it's a frequent drug running route, and they would like to search my car.

I told them I'm on a schedule, I'm not carrying any drugs (just moving), etc. They told me they would still really like to search my car, but they need my consent. They also HEAVILY implied that if I did not permit them to search my car, they would have to "keep an eye" on me for suspicious behaviour (probably follow me and find any possible excuse to do it, or write me up questionable tickets for traffic violations). They also heavily implied they would write me a $400 ticket for "obscuring my licenseplate" with my 100% clear plastic cover. I protested that that's not against the law, they told me (with a sly smirk :mad) ) that I'd be more than welcome to fight the ticket in local court. They knew very well I didn't live in the area and my destination was a ~2 day drive away.

It's an example of the government coercing someone to permit something they do not legally have a right to do, because the consequences of not doing it can be greater.

This is a valid example. However, I don't think the government actually has this much leverage over Amazon. There have been some very recent alarming cases of this, for instance when Kathleen Sebelius (sec. of HHS) threatened to ban insurance companies from the exchanges if they told customers rates were going up because of the new law. This sort of behavior is one of the principal reasons I think government needs as little control over the economy as possible, and we should all but do away with the Labor department, the FCC, etc. Control over the economy is control over everything else.

However, Amazon is a huge diversified company--it would take more than hosting wikileaks to fine them in a meaningful way. It's not like BP which could get fined out of existence for an enormous environmental disaster. It's not like insurance companies which have one sector of business that the executive branch can lock them out of with the stroke of a pen. Let me give you an example. If Amazon hosted a site that demonstrated Joe Biden murder-raped somebody and a senator told them to stop, Amazon would tell that senator to go **** himself. The White House could try to slap them with fines but if it ever had the slightest appearance that Obama was trying to stifle the story, Obama's situation would go from nightmare to outright catastrophe.

There's a saying in Washington--It's not the crime, it's the coverup. If there were a story here that people in America thought was really damning and the White House tried to do a cover up the problem would become a million times worse. This was true for Richard Nixon, it was true for John Edwards, it was true for Scooter Libby, and it was true for Larry Craig.

So in the end, I'm fairly confident that the reason Amazon is dropping the site is because for the most part Americans don't care about the things that were revealed by the cables. They don't think the government has done anything wrong, and on the contrary, think Wikileaks is helping our enemies. There is, as with everything, a significant dissent group--but Amazon is a business, and businesses have an interest in not offending significant blocs of their customer base. While they may end up offending a number of libertarians, it seems to me that the group of people angry at wikileaks is greater than the group angry at the government.

All in all, I don't think it matters that Amazon canceled wikileak's service. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference, wikileaks can go somewhere else, and so in a world free of public outrage it would be stupid for them to close down Wikileak's site. So in that sense, I think we shouldn't be angry at people just for saying things but it's totally legitimate to be angry that someone leaked these documents. And if Amazon could wave a magic wand and make it as if these documents had never been leaked, I would support that. But the information is out, and I agree companies shouldn't really be demonized for hosting it. Then again, I think wikileaks is doing bad things and it would be nice if their operation were shut down. But at the end of the day, the shutdown is a result of public outrage, not backdoor politics.

[Asher]

This is a valid example. However, I don't think the government actually has this much leverage over Amazon.

I gave a whole bunch of very valid ways the government has leverage over Amazon, all of which would be hugely harmful to a large, public company.

Amazon's first duty is to their shareholders, and if the government will make their lives miserable over it in any way, they will bend over to the government's wishes so as to not impact their shareholders.

It's very basic business. What do they stand to gain from hosting wikileaks? Maybe six figures. What do they stand to lose if the FCC delays a new Kindle launch by half a year? Or if Amazon is put through a very, very extensive IRS audit? Or if lawmakers decide to **** with the laws governing internet retailers?

Millions of dollars.

It's no coincidence Amazon was fine in hosting the site until irate politicians, like Lieberman, started lighting up their phone lines.

The government is not as infallible and moral as you seem to think it is.

[Hauldren Collider]

Also one more thing--I don't think Lieberman should be calling for Amazon to cancel Wikileaks. I find that inappropriate. But it's also meaningless. Almost all senators condemned the Supreme Court's decision that the Westboro Baptist Church could picket military funerals, which is obviously the right decision. But what are they going to do? They can't do anything. They're just *****ing and moaning. And I was angry about them *****ing and moaning about something so obviously protected. But they can't do anything about it.