The SunBreak
posted 12/03/10 11:16 AM | updated 12/03/10 11:39 AM
Featured Post! | Views: 0 | Comments : 5 | Politics

Amazon, Tableau Fold Like Cheap Suits on WikiLeaks Scandal

By Michael van Baker
Editor
Recommend this story (0 votes)
Share

WikiLeaks' Twitter stream

Already someone with a lively sense of irony has visited Amazon's listing for the book The Pentagon Papers, writing:

Amazon pulled Wikileaks from their site because it represented classified government documents. So what is the Pentagon Papers still doing on this site? Oh right, Amazon wasn't around in 1971 to cave in to pressure from right wing politicians to betray the First Amendment right to publish classified materials that have been leaked by others.

TechFlash reports that Pentagon Papers-leaker Daniel Ellsberg himself is calling upon Amazonians to get into the transparency habit:

This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear—and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses—to leak that information.

At issue is Amazon's claim that because WikiLeaks violated their terms of service hosting agreement by posting material they didn't own, Amazon was forced to terminate their hosting services--that is, it wasn't in response to governmental suasion.  The Stranger's Paul Constant isn't buying it: "They need to issue a brief, clear statement on their information policies so consumers know where they stand with Amazon. If they're not going to fight for their customers' rights, their customers need to know that."

Amazon's hosting of the material aside, Salon's Glenn Greenwald can't understand why Tableau, a Seattle interactive graphics software company, also agreed to pull WikiLeaks charts in response to a request by Senator Joe Lieberman, chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. "These charts contained no classified information whatsoever, and disclosed nothing about the content of the cables," writes Greenwald. (See an example here.)

Save and Share this article
CommentsRSS Feed
terms of service
I'm not sure what Paul Constant wants in terms of a statement of "where they stand" with consumers beyond the points set out in the Amazon Web Customer Agreement.

Further, I'm not sure why everyone is focusing on the copyright angle here since the agreement also includes a clause against using the service to host content might be "harmful to any person or entity." You can argue endlessly about whether WikiLeaks will cause any actual harm, but it's not hard to envision that the possibility exists to an extent reasonable enough for Amazon to drop them.
Comment by josh
2 days ago
( +1 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
the basic issue
Amazon is a commercial operation - as such, it cannot censor (that's the government's role). It exists purely to make money off of other people's intellectual property - and now sell a bit of its own via the cloud services.

Amazon cares not a lick about freedom of the press - they only care about the freedom to make money.

Look elsewhere for champions of freedom. Perhaps an organization such as Wikileaks. Oh, wait...
Comment by bilco
2 days ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Amazon defends child sex, but not political speech
Sure, Amazon is a great defender of free speech when it comes to child sex guides, but a little bit of real political pressure and they cave. I know where I won't be Christmas shopping online this year.
Comment by Ellis
1 day ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
It's not black and white - it's a new debate so let's give people a break
Hey this is the Information Age and these are private companies we are talking about. The press has had over a hundred years to address these types of important controversies (for example, remember the controversy that occurred over publication of the photograph of the naked little girl running away from the Napalm bomb?), but this is new to the realm of the Information Age and just a beginning to the debate in terms of where lines need to be drawn among responsibilities as corporations and that of the serving for the public good.

In the case of the Pentagon papers, NY Times sought legal advice before posting, but in cases of hosting services things get posted regardless of legal advice - they don't have this opportunity. They issue an often rarely read Terms of Service agreement that people check without reading and post whatever they want regardless. The legal enforcement is to "REMOVE THE CONTENT". Hello? Users should be thankful they get off so lucky and go post it on their own servers.

Look at the Terms of Service for your postings on this site. They can remove whatever they want under their discretion and it is NOT a violation of free speech.

The other point to be made is that even though companies (just like Sunbreak) have the right to remove comments they find offensive, in this case the companies are just not sure if the data is compromising public safety or even legal. Give them a break!
Comment by Tara
1 day ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
The real story here is obvious
This "Michael Van Baker" person is just jealous he's not as popular as Julien Assagne who is the CEO of wikileak.com
Comment by Steve Winwood
1 day ago
( +1 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Add Your Comment
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment: