Why Amazon's desertion has ominous implications

One of the most interesting aspects of the WikiLeaks controversy is the light it has shed on the providers of cloud computing. One afterwards another they have fallen over like dominoes when the going got rough. First, some of the ISPs hosting WikiLeaks caved in; at the time EveryDNS, the company that mapped its domain names on to machine addresses, dropped it; next Amazon, which had enough computer power and bandwidth to resist even the most determined cyber-attacks, took it off its computers; at that time PayPal and later Mastercard, the online conduits for donations, cancelled its accounts. The rationalisations these outfits gave for dropping WikiLeaks had a common theme, namely that it had violated the terms and conditions in accordance with which the terminated services had been provided.

The most interesting case

Amazon is the most interesting case. It provides so-called "cloud computing services" by renting out some of the thousands of computers used to run its online store. WikiLeaks moved its site on to Amazon's cloud to ensure that it would not be crippled by the denial-of-service attacks that had brought other ISPs to their knees. But at that time the company received a call from senator Joseph Lieberman, the kind of politician who gives loose cannons a bad name, who had been frothing about WikiLeaks being "implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security". Some time afterwards that, Amazon terminated WikiLeaks's account.

Yep. For years people have extolled cloud computing as the way of the future. The lesson of the last week is simple: be careful what you wish for.

That is, when all is said and done, what legitimate whistle-blowing is all about. Democracy has not in any way been abridged or threatened by the secrecy that surrounded these communications between diplomats and the leaders of their government.

Not in effect. The ISP and DNS companies' actions are very worrying however Amazon's? So long as we individuals have two-way connections to the Internet and there is TC-free hardware in the shops, surely democracy cannot be in all seriousness threatened by the skittishness or whatever of mere storage providers?

How accurate this is

I have no idea how accurate this is, now a friend of mine in America pointed out that Amazon are technically breaking the law with their core business - there are some in the extreme out-dated laws about selling over state lines which haven't been updated to take into account the internet - they pre-date the earliest form of it.

If in other words the case, it's as a matter of fact incredibly easy to put pressure on Amazon - their entire business model would be dependent on the federal government turning a blind eye to it. I'm not defending Amazon - I think what they've done is atrocious - nevertheless if this is an accurate assessment of their legal position at the time they were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The Western world's politicians

Between them the Western world's politicians, media and big business are removing all meaningful debate out of the system, and in short removing any challenges or alternatives to Neo-conservatism and manic capitalism. No large-scale or publically prominent dissent on the internet, in newspapers, TV, or by peaceful protest. No way for people to challenge the received wisdom and on-message doctrine we receive.

However, Amazon almost undoubtedly does a disproportionate amount of its annual business in the Christmas period, and DDOS attacks from Anonymous which affected ability to take payments would obviously be bad for business.

So by selling the cables Amazon by be trying to sit on the fence and placate both sides, whilst as well trying to prioritise protecting their business.

The bidding of governments

These multinational companies aren't 'pursuant to this agreement pressure' to do the bidding of governments, they're simply protecting their own interests. The cables show that western government's main concern is with promoting Western business around the world, not with any ethical concerns. Amazon, mastercard, etc., by taking wikileaks 'offline' is simply protecting the cash cow, the individuals and governments that pretend to represent electorates now instead do their utmost to make the wealthy even wealthier, and damn the rest of us.

It's our job to ensure that their dropping of Wikileaks is worse for Amazon's business than keeping it could ever have been. BOYCOTT AMAZON But!!!

Amazon dropped Wikileaks because it was the expedient thing to do and dishonestly hid behind some pretty dubious "Terms and Conditions" doublespeak to justify their actions. That doesn't sound like somebody I'd want to put my trust in. And we're supposed to be trusting these cloud computing providers with everything now our kitchen sinks hereafter.

I have worked in IT for near 20 years and have been sceptical of cloud computing ever since I heard about it. Partly in other words no doubt simple old-fart prejudice because I'm used to client-server, thick client applications and a limited role for web-based computing. As well I'm amused to see so much of the "new" architecture coming to resemble the old mainframe approach of the 70s -- although with greater complexity and power, clearly.

There are some advantages to SaaS and cloud computing, nevertheless they have been absurdly overstated and larded with ridiculous marketing hype. For my money, SaaS and cloud are usually to the benefit of the companies providing those services, not the customers. Unfortunately, IT purchasers are usually hopelessly gullible and think like bean-counters. They always fall for the snake-oil pitch: look at how "agile" is sold to the credulous as a universal panacea, for another example of optimism triumphant over reality.

The fact that this story

Erroneously using trendy buzzwords like "cloud computing" to mesmerize gullible guardianistas can't disguise the fact that this story, and the thinking behind it, are as full of holes as Helvetian fromage.

This reflects the total lack of principled debate on behalf of Amazon et al and the American political class.The double standards are quite telling: notice for instance that the same standards aren´t demanded of other governments. By extension, the same people calling for Julian Assanage to be "whacked" or "hunted down" should be applauding the actions of China when it detains, arrests or silences it´s dissidents for speaking or publishing views that it´s government doesn´t like.