Note: I generally agree with the leaking of relevant government data to expose abuses.
> "But doesn't this put fear into cloud service users that their stuff can be yanked at any time?"
Not really. Illegal content already puts you at risk of getting yanked at any time. If you were hosting pirated material or anything else that is illegal in the jurisdiction of the host, it can be yanked.
This is not a judgment on whether or not said content ought to be illegal, but rather a simple statement that nothing has changed.
That being said, I am uncomfortable with this sort of thing having no set procedure, and being instigated/pressured upon by government officials. We have a clear process for DMCA takedowns, and likewise a request to remove illegal information needs to come from law enforcement within their jurisdiction, and not from self-interested politicians.
If only we had courts and judges to handle this sort of thing! The government could file a complaint, a team of legal experts could take a look at the evidence, Wikileaks could present materials and arguments in their defense, and a final decision could be made. If Wikileaks' content was ruled illegal, then this court could send Amazon a letter asking them to remove the content. Amazon could, of course, appeal. Once the appeals process was exhausted, then they could be compelled to remove the offending material. (Not all of it, of course; only the material that the court deems "illegal", whatever that means.)
The whole process could be open and transparent, and nobody would have any grounds to complain or yell "conspiracy!"
Oh yeah, but they're terrorists, so they don't deserve freedom. Much better to punish them in private, so nobody knows what is and is not illegal. Then when the government doesn't like you, they can take whatever action they want against you, with no oversight! That would be a much better system! Potatolicious, you could say.
I was under the impression government materials are not protected by copyright. Even if they were the public interest argument (fair use) would trump copyright in this case.
The stuff hosted by wikileaks is not illegal. A lot of people would like it to be, but it is not. There have been a number of articles yesterday going into this in great depth.
Ultimately 9 Justices in the Supreme Court determine that. If Gonzales v. Raich or Kelo v. City of New London are any indication I'm fairly sure they can come up with the legal gymnastics required to make these documents illegal given the current law.
Comments
Note: I generally agree with the leaking of relevant government data to expose abuses.
> "But doesn't this put fear into cloud service users that their stuff can be yanked at any time?"
Not really. Illegal content already puts you at risk of getting yanked at any time. If you were hosting pirated material or anything else that is illegal in the jurisdiction of the host, it can be yanked.
This is not a judgment on whether or not said content ought to be illegal, but rather a simple statement that nothing has changed.
That being said, I am uncomfortable with this sort of thing having no set procedure, and being instigated/pressured upon by government officials. We have a clear process for DMCA takedowns, and likewise a request to remove illegal information needs to come from law enforcement within their jurisdiction, and not from self-interested politicians.
Do we have a clear declaration that this content is illegal? I wasn't aware we did.
You're right. I've always been under the impression that dissemination of classified material is illegal as part of the Espionage Act.
But a quick jaunt over Wikipedia is inconclusive. It seems the legality of these leaks is a lot less cut and dry than I thought.
If only we had courts and judges to handle this sort of thing! The government could file a complaint, a team of legal experts could take a look at the evidence, Wikileaks could present materials and arguments in their defense, and a final decision could be made. If Wikileaks' content was ruled illegal, then this court could send Amazon a letter asking them to remove the content. Amazon could, of course, appeal. Once the appeals process was exhausted, then they could be compelled to remove the offending material. (Not all of it, of course; only the material that the court deems "illegal", whatever that means.)
The whole process could be open and transparent, and nobody would have any grounds to complain or yell "conspiracy!"
Oh yeah, but they're terrorists, so they don't deserve freedom. Much better to punish them in private, so nobody knows what is and is not illegal. Then when the government doesn't like you, they can take whatever action they want against you, with no oversight! That would be a much better system! Potatolicious, you could say.
They at least have copyright infringement, and could probably get a big enough fine to shut down wikileaks.
US (federal) Government documents are not entitled to copyright protection within America.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105
That depends on how much of the data is strictly government property. If any of it is was written by contractors, etc. it may still have that avenue.
Any work derived by government contract is also not covered by copyright.
I was under the impression government materials are not protected by copyright. Even if they were the public interest argument (fair use) would trump copyright in this case.
The stuff hosted by wikileaks is not illegal. A lot of people would like it to be, but it is not. There have been a number of articles yesterday going into this in great depth.
Ultimately 9 Justices in the Supreme Court determine that. If Gonzales v. Raich or Kelo v. City of New London are any indication I'm fairly sure they can come up with the legal gymnastics required to make these documents illegal given the current law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
That is an eminent domain case and a fungible goods case.
I'd go for this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_vs_Ferguson