|
Quoted: So what happens when stuff we want posted publicly gets rounded up by the .gov? This doesn't bode well for the power of the internet to be the ultimate mode of distribution of contentious materials... The government didn't shut down wikileaks. They have the power to do so but didn't. This is a private corporation making a business decision free of any coercion from the government, loosen up the tinfoil a tad. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So much for that pesky 1st amendment.  What the hell does that have to do with anything? Good for Amazon, it's a smart business decision, nothing more. People think they sound cool when they say stuff like that. It was the same when they quit selling the pedophile instruction manual, you should have read the threads in amazon wailing and crying about book burning. I think there was some wailing here as well. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what happens when stuff we want posted publicly gets rounded up by the .gov? This doesn't bode well for the power of the internet to be the ultimate mode of distribution of contentious materials... The government didn't shut down wikileaks. They have the power to do so but didn't. This is a private corporation making a business decision free of any coercion from the government, loosen up the tinfoil a tad. Uhhh... I wouldn't be so certain about that. Amazon Drops WikiLeaks Site Amid Pressure By Homeland Security
<...> The plug was pulled as the influential senator and chairman of the homeland security committee Joe Lieberman called for a boycott of the site by US companies. “(Amazon’s) decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material,” he said in a statement. “I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.” <More at link> |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what happens when stuff we want posted publicly gets rounded up by the .gov? This doesn't bode well for the power of the internet to be the ultimate mode of distribution of contentious materials... The government didn't shut down wikileaks. They have the power to do so but didn't. This is a private corporation making a business decision free of any coercion from the government, loosen up the tinfoil a tad. Uhhh... I wouldn't be so certain about that. Amazon Drops WikiLeaks Site Amid Pressure By Homeland Security <...> The plug was pulled as the influential senator and chairman of the homeland security committee Joe Lieberman called for a boycott of the site by US companies. "(Amazon’s) decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material,” he said in a statement. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.” <More at link>  did the govt pass a law to go after wikileaks on us servers? no? try again |
|
Quoted:
did the govt pass a law to go after wikileaks on us servers? no? try againI didn't say they passed a law to shut them down, or sent them a letter from the FCC/EPA/ATF. What did happen was a high ranking offical in the .gov called from them to drop wikileaks. ETA: I am totally cool with Amazon dropping them. What I do not like is government pressure to restrict any civil liberty. Fuck Chuck Schumer. |
|
Quoted: So much for that pesky 1st amendment. Certain things, like stolen classified government documents, don't rise to the protections afforded in the First Ammendment. Just like hollering 'fire' in a crowded theater doesn't. The fucker who runs Wikileaks and the fucking soldier who gave up those classified documents should both be hung for treason. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: did the govt pass a law to go after wikileaks on us servers? no? try againI didn't say they passed a law to shut them down, or sent them a letter from the FCC/EPA/ATF. What did happen was a high ranking offical in the .gov called from them to drop wikileaks. ETA: I am totally cool with Amazon dropping them. What I do not like is government pressure to restrict any civil liberty. Fuck Chuck Schumer. Making public classified government national security documents isn't a fucking civil liberty.....it's treason. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So much for that pesky 1st amendment. Show me competent law that asserts that the First Amendment trumps officially designated and protected classified national security documents. I'll wait. While not a specific law... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/11/29/1874993/how-does-so-much-data-leak-so.html Relevant portion... It's all reminiscent, in some ways, of the Pentagon Papers and the Times' and Washington Post's decision to publish that report on the Vietnam War in 1971. Those stolen documents were "top secret," unlike this most recent batch, and their release had far greater foreign policy impact than these are ever likely to. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the newspapers' favor. That, of course, does not mean government can't keep sensitive information secret. But the Founding Fathers were fearful of a powerful, covert government and valued a free press' ability to prevent one. Where to draw the line between those competing public goods is a judgment call that can only be made case by case. Precedence was set long ago. Right, or wrong.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So much for that pesky 1st amendment. Certain things, like stolen classified government documents, don't rise to the protections afforded in the First Ammendment. Just like hollering 'fire' in a crowded theater doesn't. The fucker who runs Wikileaks and the fucking soldier who gave up those classified documents should both be hung for treason. Look up the definition of treason and what the wikileak guy's nationality is and report back 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So much for that pesky 1st amendment. Show me competent law that asserts that the First Amendment trumps officially designated and protected classified national security documents. I'll wait. While not a specific law... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/11/29/1874993/how-does-so-much-data-leak-so.html Relevant portion... It's all reminiscent, in some ways, of the Pentagon Papers and the Times' and Washington Post's decision to publish that report on the Vietnam War in 1971. Those stolen documents were "top secret," unlike this most recent batch, and their release had far greater foreign policy impact than these are ever likely to. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the newspapers' favor. That, of course, does not mean government can't keep sensitive information secret. But the Founding Fathers were fearful of a powerful, covert government and valued a free press' ability to prevent one. Where to draw the line between those competing public goods is a judgment call that can only be made case by case. Precedence was set long ago. Right, or wrong. Just wait. The resident Arfcom Franquists will soon be here to deride the entire concept of Common Law and the very existence of the Supreme Court.
|
|
Quoted: smart business decision, but i have to say that i am interested in the info on bank of america. I sure as hell am not. I have a BoA account. If they're doing something illegal I want a grand jury to take care of it, not risk having my personal details paraded around the internet like Lady Godiva. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
smart business decision, but i have to say that i am interested in the info on bank of america. I sure as hell am not. I have a BoA account. If they're doing something illegal I want a grand jury to take care of it, not risk having my personal details paraded around the internet like Lady Godiva. yeah, a grand jury of your peers of whom probably failed to figure out how to get out of serving because "let's let some others that give a shit about justice do it." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
smart business decision, but i have to say that i am interested in the info on bank of america. I sure as hell am not. I have a BoA account. If they're doing something illegal I want a grand jury to take care of it, not risk having my personal details paraded around the internet like Lady Godiva. yeah, a grand jury of your peers of whom probably failed to figure out how to get out of serving because "let's let some others that give a shit about justice do it." To determine the collective IQ of a jury, find the IQ of the dumbest person on it and divide by the number of jurors. |
|
I work for a hosting company and can understand given what I know about the situation why Amazon would drop them.
You see, when someone massively DDOSes a customer in your datacenter, that traffic affects other customers. It's not good business to let one customer seriously degrade the service you offer to your other customers, now is it? Plus it's likely in the contract that if you do something or host something that results in you being DDOSed like that, that the hosting provider can suspend or terminate your accounts. |
|
If she were legal age, I'd like to grunge fuck her till I broke my dick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So much for that pesky 1st amendment. The First Amendment applies to the government, not private business.  Yes, but at what point does grandstanding by politicians equal restrictions on what private businesses do when it comes to civil liberties? (And no, I am not saying it nessecarily applies in this case, I am talking about in general.) |