Comments on: A Public Service Message

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:48:41 +0000

Yeah, I’ve noticed similar things about the otherwise logical boycott/divestment campaign against the apartheid regime in a certain criminal state overseas. Too many people now say that “we” need to “go farther” by boycotting any company that does any business whatsoever in that state or in the territories that the state terrorizes and pretends to control — even though starving out everyone in the region would hardly be a solution to the attempts by socialist criminals there to starve out targets of their hateful bigotry.

By: Graham Shevlin

Graham Shevlin — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 23:26:38 +0000

Well, they just lost my business, and I have bought a lot of stuff from them over the years. I guess they will just have to make up the lost business from non-authoritarians with purchases from all of those new dittoheads flooding the site to show their gratitude…

By: Cos

Cos — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:32:31 +0000

“…I cannot do anything against the law and I must comply with any legal requirements that the company may fall under”
I want to point out that according to the widely believed sequence of events (or at least what is widely known at the moment) Amazon hasn’t compiled with a legal requirement. It simply ducked to the pressure from an office of a corrupt politician. Was there a court order issued mandating Amazon to terminate aforementioned service? Was Wikileaks convicted yet in any sort of wrongdoing? I think the answers for both are negative.

In a not-that-much-imaginary situation when someone from a power-office – say, FBI will drop a call to Mr. Bezos seeking a favor to access account’s details of Nate-m, who happened to be an Amazon customer. Are you willing to take chances in this case? Perhaps, if you haven’t done anything wrong you then shouldn’t have nothing to hide?

This is pretty slippery slope as far as I can see. Today this is a disrespect to 1st amendment and legal due process. What’s gonna be tomorrow?

By: Cos

Cos — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:21:53 +0000

You sure know the subject, Mr. Murray. The comment, while having a certain degree of competence in it, brings about a sheer and wrongful stereotypical conclusion.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 00:26:03 +0000

I think they were, in their “head”, threatened with a Leiberman press conference, some rhetoric, a “grassroots” call for a boycott against Amazon helpfully reported on every 30min on Fox News, hyped by Limbough and Palin, and carried out by “dittoheads” and palinites right at the busiest retail shopping spree of the year. So basically I think they were afraid to lose consumer business.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 00:18:06 +0000

I would say more than no notice at all. Eric didn’t say “illegal” business practices. Personally I wouldn’t say it was unethical, just bad business. If you engage in a contract for a service, and your service is canceled for no legitimate reason (does not run afoul of the business conduct agreement with Amazon), it is reasonable to expect some communication, as well as some time so you can make other arrangements.
Who will trust Amazon web services with their data if this is how they solve disputes with customers? Some business use them extensively. I would be a bit nervous if I used them for anything business critical after hearing about this. A pseudo-apologetic email and a couple additional hours of service would make all the difference.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:58:17 +0000

Qwest refused to participate in the NSA wiretap program. In retaliation they were not awarded a government contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest, topic “Refusal for NSA spying”

Google refused to hand over search information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4731640.stm
No effect on Google. ACLU backed ‘em up too.

Amazon, as far as I know, doesn’t have lucrative Government contracts to lose. The gov. can’t legally touch them if they are within the law, and they have no leverage beyond internet sales tax legislation.

I doubt the government had any real affect on Amazon’s decision. I think they were far more worried about a consumer backlash hurting their retail sales right before Xmas from the percentage of the public that wants to see Assange assasinated. Leiberman is just puffing himself up over a decision that he had nothing to do with.

I’m not sure a boycott would be widespread enough to have any real effect, but certainly don’t think the idea of boycotting Amazon is “childish and stupid”. If Amazon had gone along with something clearly illegal, like wiretapping millions of US citizens, then they should be boycotted and taken to court (as should all the telcos that complied with the illegal NSA wiretapping). As it is, they just weaseled out to avoid bad PR and sell more “Tickle Me Elmos”.

If you find that is enough of a reason to boycott them, I won’t be calling you “childish and stupid”.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:10:32 +0000

What exactly was Amazon threatened with here? I don’t see any kind of court order or anything of the sort. I see a single senator making a generalized call to boycott Wikileaks. Amazon is apparently eager to please our overlords in Washington. Maybe Wikileaks will leak threats that were privately made to Amazon.

By: niku

niku — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:54:13 +0000

… before dropping Wikileaks.

By: niku

niku — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:52:53 +0000

At least, Amazon could have asked the Senator to publicly voice his concerns.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:13:35 +0000

This is actually going to turn out to be a good thing. In response to charges of “digital piracy’”, Homeland Security was able to immediately shutdown a few sites. However, this Phoenix is already rising from the ashes. What is more, they will be using a new architecture that prevents someone essentially doing the digital equivalent of walking in and pulling the plug. This model will make censorship much more difficult. I imagine that it will not be long before Wikileaks resurfaces on a distributed domain site. It is also ironic that Joe Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, is able to pull a page out of Joseph Goebbels play book, and shut down a site he does not like with a single phone call, without due process.

By: Capt Mike

Capt Mike — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:02:27 +0000

Hey,
Take a deep breath and give Amazon a break here. An action taken with a gun at the temple cannot be judged as if the gun didn’t exist.

Among other things, Amazon is a PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATION. With that designation go some pretty darn strict laws and ethical obligations.

To continually defy the fascist bastards would have LOOKED noble, but would have been a betrayal of its stockholders, who include Granny’s pension plan.

Stop blaming the victim.

By: Capt Mike

Capt Mike — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:54:40 +0000

Geez, Not to mention their stockholders

By: Artisan

Artisan — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:59:10 +0000

Just now the famous French ex-soccer player Cantona is advertising a boycott on banking accounts :
http://www.bankrun2010.com/

By: Jerith

Jerith — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:08:48 +0000

Even though some parts of Wikileaks is unavailable, there are other websites like the CBC who are compiling their own database of the releases. Any idea if Goggle Cache will already have it too?

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:27:54 +0000

by libertarian activists and High Inquisitors, apparently.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:08:38 +0000

To those who chose not to understand the original “held at gunpoint” reference, please note that the demise of a corporation is its “death.”

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:47:24 +0000

There is existing precidence that this current administration can and will nationalize anything it sees fit. Ask the GM bondholders if their “screw you” led to anything beyond a total confiscation of their property.

By: Joshua_D

Joshua_D — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:22:52 +0000

Talk about everyone throwing out their moral view into the conversation. It seems that most people here think that ‘life is fair’ and are arguing as such. Life isn’t fair. People get to choose. They get to choose to dump a website, and others get to choose to dump a business. Still others get to choose to support the business. And others can choose to host the website. This post is a good reminder of people’s intrinsic desire to control the actions of other people and get real mad when other people don’t behave ‘properly.’

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:55:18 +0000

And required by whom, anyway?