Featured Articles

AMD Never Settle Forever bundle hits 200-series cards

AMD Never Settle Forever bundle hits 200-series cards

AMD’s Never Settle bundles have been around for a while and the community response has been extremely positive. When AMD launched…

More...
AMD shipping Beema APUs

AMD shipping Beema APUs

According to Lisa Su, SVP & GM, Global Business Units at AMD, Beema notebook parts have started shipping to manufacturers last…

More...
IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

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