Amazon

[Hal Smith]

I would like other Cinematography.com members to consider joining me in boycotting Amazon. They willingly, and with no protest, pulled WikiLeaks from their servers. The last thing we need worldwide is Internet companies who help governments censor the web.

Google looked the Chinese government in the eye and refused to blink, Amazon moaned "My Ducats, My Ducats" and flushed WikiLeaks.

[Stuart Brereton]

Julian Assange has decided that he, and he alone, is the arbiter of what we should be able to know about the necessarily secret machinations of the diplomatic service. He is highly irresponsible and every bit as unaccountable as the governments that he is 'saving' us from. The release of these cables is not designed to expose corruption, malfeasance or deception, it seems it is purely because they are secret, and Julian Assange has decided that they should not be. He is a very dangerous man with a huge ego, and Amazon were absolutely right to pull his website.

 

No boycott from me.

[Joseph Arch]

Amazon is just too deep integrated into society. Any boycott will not have an impact.

 

I do agree with you. We are being censored for exposing corruption.

[Stuart Brereton]

I do agree with you. We are being censored for exposing corruption.

 

What corruption? The cables released so far expose nothing more than the day to day communications of the US Diplomatic service. These files have been made public for no purpose other than to massage Assange's already inflated ego.

[Brian Drysdale]

 

I do agree with you. We are being censored for exposing corruption.

 

Not sure about corruption, more embarrassment or things that they'd prefer were kept private.

 

For actual corruption, the world of football (soccer) seems to have some questions to be answered.

[Joseph Arch]

I was referring to amazon taking wikileaks of their server.

 

And yes it is corruption because some of those leaks expose people in power taking bribes.

[Stuart Brereton]

Assange did a Q&A with the Guardian newspaper in the UK a few days ago. He answered questions which ranged from broadly supportive to outright sycophantic, but when one reader asked him if he thought he should bear any responsibility should normal Diplomacy prove impossible as a result of his actions, he refused to answer, accusing the reader of having an agenda.

 

it seems Mr. Assange doesn't like to be criticized or to have to answer for what he's done.

[Hal Smith]

it seems Mr. Assange doesn't like to be criticized or to have to answer for what he's done.

 

So being a saint is now a prerequisite for being allowed to use the Internet's resources?

 

Amazon's censorship of WikiLeaks is precisely equivalent to the Third Reich's burning of books.

 

I suggest you look up Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' comments on the corrosive effect that suppression of "Unpopular Speech" would have on a democracy and how such suppression would inevitably lead to the destruction of that democracy.

[Mark Dunn]

Assange did a Q&A with the Guardian newspaper in the UK a few days ago. He answered questions which ranged from broadly supportive to outright sycophantic, but when one reader asked him if he thought he should bear any responsibility should normal Diplomacy prove impossible as a result of his actions, he refused to answer, accusing the reader of having an agenda.

 

it seems Mr. Assange doesn't like to be criticized or to have to answer for what he's done.

In fact, said question wasn't a question at all, but a speech from someone claiming to be a former British diplomat complaining that the leaks would make his profession difficult. Assange told him that if he could prune his speech into a question, he, Assange, would answer it. No more was heard from that person.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

[K Borowski]

Is this anything other than a temmporary disruption of their "service?"

 

 

I read most of the pertinent links, and immediately felt guilty about it. There's nothing preventing companies from following whatever agendas they may have. They aren't endorsing slave labor or African conflict diamonds or apartheid.

 

For all I know they got a good corporate tax break from their state senator and are reciprocating after their speaking out about the damage this has done.

 

 

Even if I don't feel he should be prosecuted for this, what he does is, essentially, dealing in espionage. Stealing government secrets, from any contry, is espionage. They sent the Rosenburgs to the electric chair for it. . .

[Stuart Brereton]

So being a saint is now a prerequisite for being allowed to use the Internet's resources?

 

Not at all, but it seems that Assange believes that's exactly what he is. He has placed himself outside the law, outside of any jurisdiction. He is unaccountable, and is publishing documents which DO NOT belong to him. What if he suddenly decides that the private emails of millions of ordinary people should be in the public domain? How would you feel then, with your private thoughts spread over numerous servers for all to read, and no way of removing them or arguing for your privacy?

 

In fact, said question wasn't a question at all, but a speech from someone claiming to be a former British diplomat complaining that the leaks would make his profession difficult. Assange told him that if he could prune his speech into a question, he, Assange, would answer it. No more was heard from that person.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

 

The reader DID ask a question, he just prefaced it with some background to give it context. Assange used the length of his question as a excuse not to answer it. He was happy enough to answer equally long questions from those who agreed with him.

[K Borowski]

What if he suddenly decides that the private emails of millions of ordinary people should be in the public domain?

 

Stuart, he is already doing this. ALL people are ordinary people. I am outspoken in that I believe that politicians, diplomats really ought to have the same rights to privacy as all the rest of us.

 

When they are getting off a public flight following a highly publicised diplomatic mission, no, but when they are vacationing, at a bar, issued a traffic ticket, that is really none of the public's business.

 

 

 

All of these leaks come from, for the most part, people way down the totem pole, who shouldn't have had access to the info. anyway that leaked it. . .

[K Borowski]

So being a saint is now a prerequisite for being allowed to use the Internet's resources?

 

Amazon's censorship of WikiLeaks is precisely equivalent to the Third Reich's burning of books.

 

-No, it's not. God knows, none of us are.

 

-Really? Really?

 

This is just like the Democrats comparing Bush to Stalin or the Republicans Obama to Hitler, or Osama Bin Laden, because his name is similar; they'r be both Bu!!sh^^, and so is your assertion.

 

Censorship has existed throughout history in THIS COUNTRY, every day at every paper. I won't even bring up every office, every corporation, every SCHOOL.

 

 

Do you know what it takes to publish a paper, print a pamphlet, distribute it? There are all sorts of political pressures on the small scale that nullify the grandiose statements of a bunch of rich white slave-holding landed gentlemen 234 yrs. ago.

 

The "rights" they applied in the constitution, incidentally, applied only to white, landowning males over the age of 40, later 21, later minorities and women, and then later 18 y.os are highly questionable in light of the great length of time it took to fully appreciate them, fairly (nearly 200 years).

 

So get off your high horse and take a history course that isn't imbued with Americana propaganda. They wouldn't let actresses TALK about drugs or show side cleavage 70 years ago. They had a human censor on set with tape he would put on their costumes.

 

 

Granted that is trivial, but the Vietnam War bears out that freedom of the press was MORE developed then that censorship of irrelevant issues is now.

 

 

 

Not that Assange is The Rosenburgs, but don't dare subscribe to the notion that corporations didn't have a voice deep in the world's past. They founded the United States.

 

That they have a corporate voice is that they can promote propaganda via commercials. I'm sure in time the balance of power will be shifted back against them, in balance, and they will pay more money to boot!

 

 

Just quit crying "Chicken Little" and I won't be so quick to react. This is one-sided politics at its worst this thread.

 

 

The poor, democratic, pot-smoking, peace-loving, anti-war hippies, versus white, over 30-something, Big Brother government corporate agendas?

 

 

That is more propaganda that Eastman Kodak used to have about its environmental program! And I own ten times as much of their stock as I'd care to admit! And buy their products exclusively. . .

[Stuart Brereton]

 

I suggest you look up Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' comments on the corrosive effect that suppression of "Unpopular Speech" would have on a democracy and how such suppression would inevitably lead to the destruction of that democracy.

 

Hal, i totally agree that Freedom of Speech is an integral part of Democracy, and I support julian Assange's right to publish his thoughts and opinions in any way he sees fit. Unfortunately he is publishing the thoughts and opinions of other people, and without their consent. I don't believe that is covered by freedom of speech. And to what end? Are we to believe that every single one of the 250,000 cables contains evidence of corruption, foul play and conspiracy? If they do not, then why publish? The Iraq War logs arguably contained information that the public had a right to know, about the laws that were being broken by their own governments. These cables seem to show nothing more than diplomatic commentary of the kind practiced by all governments, and in my mind their publication is nothing more than an act of self aggrandisement by a deluded narcissist, designed to embarrass the US government simply because he can.

[Hal Smith]

I think I'll let this go with two comments.

 

WikiLeaks invited the State Department's cooperation in redacting anything truly harmful in the documents. The State Department refused, perhaps indicating that they knew nothing really harmful was contained in them.

 

And...

 

Nothing in the documents is classified "Top Secret". The Government generally classifies materials that are truly harmful to national security as Top Secret and above. Many of the releases I've read amount to professional diplomat gossip...like Gaddafi's having a hot Ukranian nurse for an escort, and Medvevev playing Robin to Putin's Batman.

[Phil Rhodes]

Much as I support the maximum practical degree of transparency in

government, I'm not sure I necessarily agree, at least not entirely.

 

People say things about others in private that they wouldn't say publically.

This is a normal and healthy facet of human nature which is necessary for

all relationships, both personal and professional. The point hinges on the

difference between secrecy and privacy, and I would argue that whereas

people might not have an absolute right to secrecy, generally they do have a

right to privacy. I don't see any reason why a diplomat shouldn't be

afforded that courtesy as much as anyone in any other profession, and

perhaps even more so because diplomacy is exactly that - making people like

you and like your ideas, in a particularly high stakes arena.

 

People have responded to that by saying that a government's business is

intrinsically the business of its people, and those people should have

unlimited access to information about what it does on their behalf. In

principle I agree, but the reality is that the public can't be informed

without also informing the bad guys. It is for this reason that I think

governments are occasionally entitled to have secrets, or to have privacy,

even from their own populace; there is no problem with responsible members

of the public knowing this stuff, but unfortunately it can't be released to

them without releasing it to everybody.

 

This is actually an argument put forward by the Bilderberg group for reasons

directly to do with wanting people to speak freely, without fear that what

they say will be made public, and it is, unfortunately, valid enough. Google

will tell you all about these people.

 

Of course arguments over the need for secrecy should never be used to

conceal wrongdoing. We are forced to trust them on this, and this will

always be a compromise between the need for transparency on one hand and the

need for confidentiality on the other. It is sometimes OK for governments to

have secrets. It is sometimes OK to subvert that secrecy in order to help

keep governments honest.

 

Therefore I think Wikileaks should have a reason to release this sort of

thing. If this means editorialising, if that's the price of being somewhat

responsible, so be it. Simply grabbing a newspaper headline with a bit of

scandal is not a very good reason. Conversely, this current dossier may also

contain information on a discussin between the US and German governments

during which the US tried to pressure Germany into not extraditing a group

of CIA agents which it had arrested under its own law. There probably is a

good reason to release that because it will encourage the US government not

to engage in such unpleasantness again.

 

To their immense discredit, the Germans folded.

[Stuart Brereton]

Nothing in the documents is classified "Top Secret".

 

Nothing in the documents is classified as "For Internet Publication" either. And the fact remains that these cables are stolen property.

 

 

Many of the releases I've read amount to professional diplomat gossip...like Gaddafi's having a hot Ukranian nurse for an escort, and Medvevev playing Robin to Putin's Batman.

 

So why publish them? How is disseminating these cables for the Public good? What wrongdoing are they exposing?

 

This is all about Julian Assange's ego. He believes that he is above the law, and that he has the right to do as he wishes, without regard to the consequences. Nothing Democratic about that.

[Guest]

Does this mean you won't be placing an order for the Dogfather on Amazon? B)

 

R,

[James Steven Beverly]

They sent the Rosenburgs to the electric chair for it. . .

 

They sent the Rosenbergs to the electric chair because they were openly Jewish in 1950s America.

 

The lily white Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall, the boy genius, who although also Jewish, had an anglicized name, were the men that gave the Russians the bomb. Hall never spent a day in jail for his crimes even though he admitted it and should have been hung. Fuchs did time but should have also been hung. There is a GREAT deal of evidence to believe that Julius Rosenberg was at best a minor player in the espionage and Ethel, though not completely innocent, never did anything that actually helped the Russians develop a bomb.

 

Her less Jewish sounding brother David Greenglass, however, who actually stole the secrets before giving them to Julius to take to Soviet spies, only did 10 years. Morton Sobell another courier did close to 18 years and Harry Gold also a Soviet operative who was heavily involved did 15, but neither were executed.

 

That whole incident seems very familiar when one considers how similar Soviet hysteria spawning Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy with his House Un-American Activities committee's Communist Witch Hunts of the 50s compares to today's hysteria over Islamic terrorists spawning Penguin Dick Chaney-Joker George W. Bush's Patriot Act, Guantanamo bay and the WHOLE psycho right wing insanity that is creating a quagmire in the very soul of this nation.

 

The difference is our Edward R Morrows are now prettyboy corporate stooges wholly owned by Viacom and Rupert Murdock.

 

I can only hope our current situation flowers another renaissance in thought and attitude akin to what happened during the mid-1960s only this time, less the drugs and naivete.

 

As for the leaks, I was pleasantly surprised by the refreshingly honest comments which revealed feelings we knew these diplomats had but were unable to openly express. It's nice to know China thinks Kim Jong Il is a f*%king idiot too!

 

I DO however, think WikiLeaks is playing a very dangerous game that could blow up in it's face REAL easy. In some ways, it's no different than outing that CIA agent. I think WikiLeaks has the right to publish what they want so long as they have a moral compass they steer by. These leaks however smack of sensationalism which is nothing more than a byproduct of greed and they need to be held accountable for their actions should those bring undue harm.

 

I ALSO think the government needs to do a better job of keeping their secrets, secret. Don't blame others for your sloppy security measures, remember it could have been a Hell of a lot worse. Suppose they had actually released something that was REALLY sensitive. That could have been a very bad day indeed instead of simply a diplomatic embarrassment. B)

[James Steven Beverly]

Does this mean you won't be placing an order for the Dogfather on Amazon? B)

 

R,

Well, let's not get fanatical about it. :D

[Hal Smith]

Does this mean you won't be placing an order for the Dogfather on Amazon? B)

Not to worry: Barnes and Noble has it in their online store.

 

Seriously though, my roughly $120 worth of Christmas present books and DVD purchases would have gone to Amazon and did last year. This year a local bookseller and B&N got my business.

 

A side story here about Amazon's business ethics.

 

I had to upgrade my Quicken Home and Business software in a hurry this year to keep in sync with my bank's checking account register download system. A quick Google found a downloadable copy of Q2010 on Amazon's website 30% cheaper than Quicken's retail price on their website. I bought, and downloaded, it that day from Amazon. Two days later Quicken released Q2011 and the next day it was on Amazon's site, Q2010 having disappeared. I called Amazon's Customer Support to see what I needed to do to get a free upgrade.

 

You know what they told me? Even though I contacted them THREE DAYS after they were selling (and I bought) Q2010 on their website, they said they didn't have any responsibility to upgrade me. If I wanted Q2011, I would have to BUY IT AGAIN! No one at Amazon had the authority to give me a courtesy upgrade. I've had Quicken for around ten years and fortunately I've kept it registered. I called Quicken, explained what Amazon had just done to me, and even though I hadn't bought Q2011 through Quicken, they placed a free copy of Q2011 in my Quicken user account for download.

 

Don't buy software from Amazon, if anything bad happens, they'll screw you in a heartbeat.

 

Later: Bottom line? Amazon treated me like someone they assumed was trying to steal something even though I've bought a lot of stuff off Amazon for years...and they know that from my account records. Quicken treated me like what I am, a long-term good customer.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Hal Smith

[John Sprung]

WikiLeaks invited the State Department's cooperation in redacting anything truly harmful in the documents. The State Department refused, perhaps indicating that they knew nothing really harmful was contained in them.

 

Taking that thought a little farther -- WikiLeaks has released such material before. Perhaps that gave someone the idea of using these gobs of catty gossip to carry a small payload of disinformation, eagerly disseminated by the useful idiot Assange. ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brian Dzyak]

 

 

...but don't dare subscribe to the notion that corporations didn't have a voice deep in the world's past. They founded the United States.

 

 

 

Wow, that is exactly untrue. The United States was founded by people AGAINST Corporate influence over "the people." The tipping point prior to the American Revolution was the British East India Company exerting influence over the British Parliament to exact taxes over "local" tea production in order to protect the product from the East India Company. It was a fight against Fascism before it even had a name.

 

 

Every generation that suffers under the undo influence of Fascist CONservative ideology needs someone to turn a light on in the dark room that Fascism cloaks us all under. Wikileaks is this generation's Upton Sinclair. He will be maligned and falsely accused of a lot of things as all good rebels and "patriots" are. Banks and Corporations are more afraid of "Liberals" than any government is mainly because, since at least the Revolutionary War (in the Americas), banks and Corporations have more to lose than any government every does. It's all about the money. People can argue back and forth about political ideology all they want to and never get noticed, but threaten the wealth and power of those at the top, then those Fascists put down their pipes, take off their smoking-jackets, and take notice. It's all about the money. If it wasn't, nobody would care.

[K Borowski]

Richard, name calling "CONservative" is perhaps one of the most childish things I have ever seen here in my six - 1/2 years.

 

I could write "DEMONcrat," or "RepLieBCan," but I don't because I know they contribute nothing to my credibility; in fact, they detract from it.

 

 

 

Before industry, there was the plantation. They put many people to work for free (supported until the 1960s by Democrats), and made tonnes of money for their rich, white landed gentry.

 

 

 

 

I almost posted something here last night, Richard, with your regards to the Jews. Thank God I didn't. It surely would have gotten me banned, but that is patently untrue hourse-it you've just spouted. They killed them because they were Jewish, right after WWII? Really?

 

Learn your history man. There is so much corrupted, stupid, arrogant assumption when it comes to that religion, from both sides of the equation it drives me mad. Being a Jew has nothing to do A with how you look B with how you vote C with whether or not you are pro-Palestine (many Jews are) or D membership in the Illuminati.

 

 

If my rich well-established, protestand blue blooded wasp grandfather got the same charge in the '50s, he may have gotten life in prison instead of the electric chair. He wouldn't have gone to "club fed" for 6 mos. and laughed about it.

 

 

 

That is preposterous, and ignorant, and a stupid thing to say they zapped them because they were Jews. First of all, they were living in New York, not South Carolina or Birmingham, Alabama. They were spying for the Soviet Union, clearly above and beyond anything someone would do for faith; the Soviet Union killed nearly as many Jews in the WWII era as Germany did. . .

[Guest]

Richard, name calling "CONservative" is perhaps one of the most childish things I have ever seen here in my six - 1/2 years.

 

I almost posted something here last night, Richard, with your regards to the Jews.

 

Ahhhhh, just so we're clear you're not talking about me here, correct?

 

I didn't post any of the comments you are referencing. Just checkin'

 

R,