Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

More...
AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

More...
AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

More...
OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 03 December 2010 11:32

Amazon denies government leant on it

Written by Nick Farell


We would have booted Wikileaks anyway
Online retailer Amazon denied that the US government was involved in its decision to stop hosting WikiLeaks' content.

The outfit said that it terminated its hosting relationship with the controversial site because it became clear that WikiLeaks was violating Amazon's terms of service. The basis of that breach was because WikiLeaks did not control all of the rights related to the classified government cables it posted this week. In short, it was saying it was a pirate site.

Amazon doubted the documents had been carefully redacted as promised and innocent lives could be put at risk as a result. The site said that “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 said that Amazon had 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,” Amazon said.

Last modified on Friday, 03 December 2010 11:57

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+7 #1 Dreay 2010-12-03 12:19
So thats their official statement, but im 100% sure they def. got pressured to take it down.
 
 
0 #2 stoneeh 2010-12-03 18:30
thank you amazon, i'll consider that next time i would have ordered from you
 
 
-2 #3 yasin 2010-12-03 21:32
not rightfully theirs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29
 
 
-4 #4 totough 2010-12-04 10:00
Quoting yasin:
not rightfully theirs?


The information posted WAS NOT released under the FOIA. Meaning it was not legally released. The person who released the information is being punished under courtmartial. He should be tried for espionage and sentenced to death. Oh next time you want to talk about something you THINK you know. Don't it will make you look stupid.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm
The article for espionage(treas on or conspiring with the enemy)
Quote:
any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
 
 
-4 #5 jonelsorel 2010-12-04 14:17
@ title: even thinking that is absurd. The US govt doesn't do such things..
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments