WikiLeaks furious over Amazon ousting

By Liam Tung on Dec 2, 2010 10:59 AM
Filed under Storage

Denial of service.

WikiLeaks has lashed out at EC2 cloud provider Amazon for booting the organisation from its cloud infrastructure, which WikiLeaks had relied on to keep it up and running in the face of sustained cyber attacks.

"If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books," WikiLeaks said late Wednesday via a post on Twitter.

Amazon's decision to cut WikiLeaks off from its infrastructure reportedly knocked it offline intermittently throughout Wednesday, giving rise to speculation that WikiLeaks had opted not to host its main or Cablegate site with Amazon.

However WikiLeaks confirmed late Wednesday that it been given the boot by Amazon.

"WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted," it said - again on Twitter. "Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe."

US Senator Joe Lieberman, chair of the US Homeland Security Committee, issued a statement earlier Wednesday flagging that Amazon had terminated its relationship with the group.

"This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the Wikileaks website," Lieberman said via a statement, expressing his wish that Amazon "had taken this action earlier".

Hours earlier, Interpol officially released its "Wanted" notice for WikiLeaks' Australian founder, Julian Assange, over rape allegations in Sweden.

The brief statement noted that the 39-year-old Australian was wanted by the prosecution office in Swedish city, Goteborg, under the category of "sex crime" -- an allegation that he has persistently refuted.

WikiLeaks this week withstood two separate cyber attacks that have been aimed at taking down its distribution capacity.

The document-leaking organisation had alternated its service between three geographically distinct hosts, two of which relied on Amazon's EC2 cloud. It relied on a similar configuration during its previous warlogs release.

42 comments in this discussion

"For the Record: In Australia it is NOT illegal to publish these documents. Whistleblowers have only rudimentary protection (even the proposed Whistleblower legislation, while legally protecting ..."

By Pilotyoda

Tags

wikileaks, amazon, hosting, cloud

Amazon records blistering site hosting growth

AWS bags US federal government certification

Amazon Q1 results meet expectations

Amazon opens Redshift cloud data warehouse service

Breaking Stories

Alacer Gold turns ERP refit project to Australia

NSW Govt bids for self-service analytics

NSW Police take aim at 3D-printable guns

Google faces new federal antitrust probe

US ISP to rip out Huawei equipment

Comments: 42

Ace Dec 2, 2010 1:07 PM	"If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books," - and there is the twisted logic that makes this organisation difficult to trust or take seriously.
Mordd Dec 2, 2010 1:45 PM	Ace the only twisted logic here is your own m8.
Ace Dec 2, 2010 3:41 PM	I'm not that good at SMS speak, but I assume you refer to my post? I don't see how hosting stolen material amount to the denial of 'freedom of speech'. I'm sure it does in WikiLeaks slightly distorted view of the way the world should be run, but no-one voted them in. People have tried hosting pirated CDs and DVDs or illegally copied content, and have been shut down/fined/jailed etc. I don't believe the accused in these cases ever claimed they were being denied their 'freedom-of-speech'. I'm sure we would have laughed if they had. I'm laughing right now!
HubertCumberdale Dec 2, 2010 3:42 PM	yeah WikiLeaks are the bad guys now not the ones who fυcked up and tried to hide it from everyone, I swear this whole planet must have some kind of collective dementia sometimes...
HubertCumberdale Dec 2, 2010 3:56 PM	Ace wrote: I'm sure it does in WikiLeaks slightly distorted view of the way the world should be run, but no-one voted them in. And what of the ones that were voted in? you know the ones that despite the worldwide protests and condemnation by the people that voted for them decided to drop bombs all over the place anyway.
cobrasixtysix Dec 2, 2010 3:58 PM	So far as I can see Wikileaks is trying to bring a bit of honesty to the world by exposing the political lies of Powerful Secretive Governments, Big Business, and Financiers that see the general massses (you and I) as little more than cattle to be harvested at will. If you don't feel like somethings drasticly wrong with the world at the moment, you need to stop and smell the roses, cuz what I can smell right now isnt perfume.
djzort Dec 2, 2010 4:44 PM	Dont be fooled - anti-government sentiment is a tool of big business to sell newspapers and keep Journalists in business. Free speech enables these journalists to behave in ways that were once considered sedition and descent. Now its just 'raw & honest journalism' or some such. The problem with free-speech is its lack of proportionality and the lack of consequences for the harm it does. In that a minority view can be easily overrepresented, against a popular view which almost always remain relatively silent. This works against the democratic principles free speech is supposed to uphold. Also on this line of mis-used, free speech is also a convenient tool for defamation. Whilst journalists make a career making story - another person's livelihood is destroyed. Or in some cases their actual life is lost. Freedom of the press is also dangerous and has cost many many lives. Vietnam for example, North Vietnam could watch the nightly news and get great intel. on the American forces - all thanks to the US media. 'War corespondents' leech off of the bravery and sacrifice of our brave soldiers - often compromising their operations and being paid big bucks for it. Regardless of the worthiness of the cause, there is no justification for further endangering the men and women of our armed forces. Surely it is our soldiers that are the heroes, not the scum that want to make a buck taking photos of them. Thankfully, Australia has no provision for freedom of speech in our constitution.
Jahnah Dec 2, 2010 5:31 PM	I used to work next to an abattoir; a large windowless building that filled the neighbourhood with the smell of death. Most people don’t want to know what goes on inside those buildings: they just want the meat. It’s the same with government: most people don’t care about what goes on within the halls of power. But perhaps they should. I for one would like to understand the true cost of my freedom.
Res Dec 2, 2010 5:44 PM	This is really a wake up call for those considering, and for those currently, hosting their content in the stormy amazon (or any, fpor that mater) "cloud", and what can happen if the U.S. Govt doesn't like what you offer. I wonder what U.S. homeland security threatened amazon with this time...
Ace Dec 2, 2010 5:46 PM	Believe it or not @Hubert, those governments were voted in by their populations. And they can be voted out again too (well, is western countries at least). People who advocate 2 wrongs making a right are generally considered radicals. Good thing too, otherwise we'd all be out there shooting doctors who perform abortions while proclaiming to be pro-life! Edited by ace: 2/12/2010 05:47:37 PM
HubertCumberdale Dec 2, 2010 6:35 PM	Ace wrote: Believe it or not @Hubert, those governments were voted in by their populations. And thats exaclty my point they were voted in but still disregard what the people want and you are willing to trust them? Ace wrote: People who advocate 2 wrongs making a right are generally considered radicals. Explain what Wikileaks has done wrong, or is this just your opinion? Ace wrote: Good thing too, otherwise we'd all be out there shooting doctors who perform abortions while proclaiming to be pro-life! The two aren't even comparable.
Ace Dec 3, 2010 12:13 AM	I thought I did @Hubert (point 2), when I mentioned the thing about 1) receiving then 2) publishing stolen information. We're not talking about a typical political 'leak', which is approved by some minister. There is clearly no level of 'approval' to this leak. It seems pretty obvious that what they're doing is considered illegal in most countries. There is no doubt that if the information was some less from 'friendly' state, the WikiLeaks people would be on some kind of 'death list' - popular in some parts of the world. However, WikiLeaks do appear to believe that '2 wrongs make a right'. OK, the first wrong is only a perceived wrong. WikiLeaks believe that everybody mentioned in the leaks has done something 'wrong', so they publish stolen information as some kind of revenge. They claim some kind of piety, but are happy to publish stolen information, which they clearly lack the capacity to understand the significance of - mostly due to reading with one eye.
HubertCumberdale Dec 3, 2010 12:34 AM	Ace wrote: I thought I did @Hubert (point 2), when I mentioned the thing about 1) receiving then 2) publishing stolen information. blah blah blah Ok I really dont think "stolen information" is the right phrase to use here, for a start information is given to them they haven't stolen anything, if you want to argue that whoever leaked it to them should be punished you might have a point however everyone knows what Wikileaks is all about you cant just turn a blind eye when it suits your agenda (I'm taking about governments here) and then cry foul when they publish something that embarrasses your nation (or worse make up stories). So whether you agree with their ethos or not is irrelevant; Wikileaks has brought a certain transparency to western "democracies" that has been severely lacking lately... also what Mordd said. Edited by HubertCumberdale: 3/12/2010 12:35:20 AM
Joe M Dec 3, 2010 5:57 AM	I have spent my whole adult life fighting for freedom of speech, which often meant having to counter the toxic sludge emanating from the likes of @djzort. His lack of understanding, after all these decades and all the revelations, of what the Vietnam war was really about means that he is incapable of understanding even the rudiments of power politics and the disasters it brings upon us. Its Hoorah Henrys like him with his "heroic soldiers" who are the main enablers of the innumerable pointless bloody conflicts we find ourselves in nowadays. The true irony of his inane post, which djzort will of course never appreciate, is that he is able to spout his utter contempt for one of the most fundamental freedoms we enjoy in our country, the right to free speech, only because he is protected by it. (In case anyone should think that this is written by some pointy headed leftie: I supported the Vietnam war, I was in the army at the time, I believed what my government told me. Which means that I was cheated and lied to, taken advantage of and my life was endangered for nothing.)
Joe M Dec 3, 2010 6:17 AM	It may come as a surprise to you @Ace but the "stolen information" you are so worked up about actually belongs to us! You know, "We the People..." and all that. Not only does it belong to us but we have an inalienable right to know what it contains. Thankfully we now have the internet and the likes of WikiLeaks to ensure that our rights are respected. In this case the information released is actually a revelation of the cynical abuse of power by those whom we have "elected" to represent us. If you actually read the material, which you clearly haven't, you would quickly find that the only criminals in this instance are the evil, lying, manipulative scum who have managed to insinuate themselves into positions of power in "democratic" societies only to further their and their mates' interests. By the way your touching faith in the power of "voting" to right all wrongs reminds me of buying shoes in Poland in the 1960s: you could get all the colours you wanted, as long as it was black.
Joe M Dec 3, 2010 6:56 AM	@Res you couldn't be more correct! This sounds like the death knell of "cloud computing" to all but the dumbest of users. It was a stupid idea in the first place and will take it's rightful place in the museum of "Seemed Like a Good Idea At the Time". (Anyone remember Microsoft Bob?) My decades of working with technology usually makes me very cautious about prognosticating but I'll put my money down on this one.
Ace Dec 3, 2010 9:49 AM	@JoeM, you couldn't be more wrong. It belongs to the US. We are not the US. In the US, you might get 30 years in jail for such treason. I don't expect they'd treat foreigners as lightly. @Hubert, in Australia at least, receiving stolen property - particularly when you know it's stolen is the same crime as stealing it yourself. Most people know and understand this. Just because the information belonged to the US government doesn't make it any less of a crime. It was/is not public information, and people who believe that any information the government and military have should be made public are clearly a little light-on in the top paddock. Naive at best. Edited by ace: 3/12/2010 09:52:48 AM
Mark D Dec 3, 2010 9:57 AM	@Joe M. I think the word your after is "Vapourware".
HubertCumberdale Dec 3, 2010 12:28 PM	Ace wrote: @Hubert, in Australia at least, receiving stolen property - particularly when you know it's stolen is the same crime as stealing it yourself. blah blah blah Ok this is where you argument falls apart on 2 fronts. 1) This information is not property, it cannot be stolen. it was passed on electronically or otherwise to Wikileaks, whatever happened to the original copies (the property) was is in the hands of who ever leaked it. 2) Are you sure these alleged "crimes" took place in Australia? Also you keep using the term stolen, I'm sorry but this just a disingenuous argument this is the same sort of thing the RIAA and MPAA do. Piracy is Piracy and theft is theft and stolen does not apply in any way here. Treason for whoever passed the information onto Wikileaks perhaps. but theft for Wikileaks, no just no. Of course you can twist anything around (and I'm sure a good lawyer could do the same) to suit your agenda when a group does something you disagree with but facts are facts and we know better. Edited by HubertCumberdale: 3/12/2010 12:31:59 PM
Ace Dec 3, 2010 2:09 PM	Phew, that'll be relief to all those DVD pirates (like Lisa Chen - doing 9 years for piracy) who only have copies. They just need @Hubert on their legal team! I guess that mean identity theft is also fiction, since in @Huberts world, information can't be stolen. The stuff was obviously stolen. The fact it's in electronic form makes no difference, and seems to me quite bizarre that you seem to think otherwise. The only other way to have gotten the information would be with US governmental approval. This does not appear to be the case. I never claimed the crimes took place in Australia. I was merely summarising the law as we know it here. I imagine it is somewhat similar in the US, but who knows.
HubertCumberdale Dec 3, 2010 2:40 PM	Ace wrote: Phew, that'll be relief to all those DVD pirates (like Lisa Chen - doing 9 years for piracy) who only have copies. They just need @Hubert on their legal team! Theft, piracy, and copyright infringements are all different things please learn the difference, when you try to substitute one for another in these arguments it just make you look stupid... Ace wrote: I guess that mean identity theft is also fiction Identity theft is real but the phrase used to describe it contains the word theft so this is just a misnomer. Ace wrote: since in @Huberts world, information can't be stolen. That's right It cant. The media it is contained on can though. Ace wrote: The stuff was obviously stolen. No. Ace wrote: The fact it's in electronic form makes no difference, and seems to me quite bizarre that you seem to think otherwise. blah blah blah What is bizarre is that you still dont know the difference. Willful ignorance or just biased?
Ace Dec 3, 2010 3:28 PM	I'm suprised you can't just admit that I'm right and move on @Hubert. Have a read up on Intellectual Property. That's right 'Property'.
HubertCumberdale Dec 3, 2010 3:31 PM	Ace wrote: I'm suprised you can't just admit that I'm right and move on @Hubert. Have a read up on Intellectual Property. That's right 'Property'. You are wrong, intellectual property is intellectual property, property is property two different things once again.
Ace Dec 3, 2010 4:35 PM	Are you insinuating IP cannot be stolen either?
HubertCumberdale Dec 3, 2010 10:03 PM	Ace wrote: Are you insinuating IP cannot be stolen either? Are you still trying to argue that something has been stolen? you STILL seem to be quite confused and now you're even trying to bring intellectual property violations into the mix, are you calling intelligence (aka facts) intellectual property?
Pilotyoda Dec 5, 2010 10:36 AM	The documents have been leaked by whistleblowers. There is no law that then prevents their publication. Anyone who advocates self or external censorship of the media will rue the day. The faxt that the agencies have been caught flat footed is a different issue. Too much time has been wasted here and elsewhere discussing the legalities/morals of Wikileaks, while ignoring the more serious issue of the content of the leaks. There is a potential for individuals/agencies/governments to "go down" because they F***d Up. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/03/like-mp3s-wikileaks-will-change-govt-so-why-has-everyone-missed-the-point/ That is why the backlash. Lets analyze what they did and its meaning for the world (most of which for other domains, not the IT industry). What concerns this industry is the potential for it to become the pariah of those in power that have been embarrassed. That pressure was put on Amazon is important. If they did it without pressure, that is also significant. What I fear most for all of us is the way that the owner of a site can be targeted by a global conspiracy to get him via any means, collusive or individual. That in the US there have been calls for "Extra Judicial Killing". A lynch mob by any other name. Is the Democracy we wish to work/live in? "Either way, Julian Assange deserves to die for what he's done and he should be killed to send a message loud enough to convince other people not to publish documents like this in the future." http://rightwingnews.com/2010/07/the-cia-should-kill-julian-assange/ "Professor Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, suggested assassinating Mr Assange. Flanagan said Barack Obama should “put out a contract” to rid the world of Mr Assange." http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1012/101204-julian_assange.html What next? A contract on developers of file sharing technology put out by the publishing houses? Fortunately, Wikileaks has provided a Torrent link to download the entire site and this preserve and distribute the information. A legitimate use of this technology and no copyright breaches!
Pilotyoda Dec 5, 2010 10:37 AM	http://88.80.16.63/torrent/cablegate/cablegate-201012031501.7z.torrent
Maxxi2 Dec 5, 2010 5:23 PM	@Pilotyoda... Well actually there is a raft of laws that prohibit their distribution. There is no magic wand that glows when you say "whistleblower" and all of a sudden myriad laws in various countries cease to apply... Whistleblowing applies to when someone is breaking laws and is exposed by someone else. In this case most of docs do not apply to any breaking of any laws, but to legal communications between countries, diplomats, agencies, militaries, attaches, embassies, civil servants etc etc. That part of this event is not whistleblowing at all, but "Hey we can embarrass these folks here, let's publish all this non-public stuff..." Makes for great reading, sensational headlines, embarrassment, friction etc. But would you like every word you ever said in confidence about other folks plastered all over the internet, or any habits you might have publicised to all and sundry? In an ideal world that would be OK, but buzzzzzz we do not have one, so the whole exercise is 10% useful and 90% damaging. Whether for good or otherwise, the data was illegally misapproriated, is illegally in the hands of those that have it and illegally publicised. Now that you have linked the moronic statement from the right winger to take violent action, could you also link the myriad other statements from more relevant folks seeking reasonable measures in such cases? Do you really think the world reaction is measured by the statement from Flanagan? Looks to me like you are trying to fan the flames of aggressiveness just as much as the others... The laws have not been suspended because the publication came from Wikileaks. The Amazon server was hosting illegally misapproriated docs and gets a court order or govt demand to disconnect access to those webpages. Simple. Naturally many of the machinations of modern govts are not clean, logical and often also not legal. Dumping this mass of docs into the public domain though is not the answer and will not bring the results you want. Considering that people get assassinated on the streets of LA due to $100 drug debts and girls get murdered in many countries because they have a boy-friend of the wrong religion, I figure Assange is currently more protected than targeted by western authorities and is in relative safety...
Pilotyoda Dec 5, 2010 9:35 PM	@Maxxi1 You are perfectly right. There are many who advocate the opposite of these right wingers. Eg: "Think Before You Kill Julian Assange" http://realityme.net/2010/11/30/think-before-you-kill-julian-assange/ and other posts. These are not the problem, however. I was merely pointing out the extremes that some consider in their quest for maintenance of power. Fanning the flames I am not doing. My personal feelings don't even come into it, but for the record, I believe publishers like Wikileaks are critical in maintaining democracy. I certainly don't believe, like at least one person here, that free speech is a distortion, or dangerous. If these governments have done the wrong thing I want to know about it. The publication of their wrong doing should be applauded, not criticized as Treason, or whatever. In this country the laws are fairly straight forward. While those doing the leaks are not fully protected by law, yet, the publication of said documents by the press is protected. There is no crime in publishing said documents unless the documents themselves pertain to the carrying out of a crime. So you can't publish an instruction manual in terrorism or how to take your own life. These documents do not fall into that category. In fact, the highest courts in the US have also supported the freedom of the press to publish this kind of document under their 1st amendment. In any case we will soon have whistle-blower protection legislation. "The laws have not been suspended because the publication came from Wikileaks. The Amazon server was hosting illegally misappropriated docs and gets a court order or govt demand to disconnect access to those webpages." -- The US 1st amendment protects Amazon and Wikileaks in the publication. A government demand yes, but the government there cannot get a court order. Mind you, I suspect having the US govt lean on them would be very effective. Correction: WAS very effective! What is of concern is Assange is an Australian citizen and those in power intend to roll over to the demands of the US in their quest. The fact that he has reached the top of the Interpol (and no doubt the CIA and FBI) Most Wanted list (over and above Osama Bin Laden) speaks more than the rhetoric from the pundits. This is about diplomacy, embarrassment and the fact that the US has breached so many of its own, and international, laws that it will be derided for so long, they are absolutely livid. As you say, I wouldn't want all of my past in the media, but should it get there i have only myself to blame for any past indiscretions. I might be pissed of with the leaker, but that doesn't give me the right to declare war on those involved. Think of all the sports personalities. We concentrate on their activities, not those of the person that broke the story. I seriously doubt Assange is very safe. The winner of the Melbourne Cup would be a safer bet. Remember. WE don't shoot the messenger, just the person that did the original crime. In this case it is those in power who did the wrong thing. The fact they are trying to cover with smoke and mirrors does not remove their responsibility.
Ace Dec 5, 2010 9:52 PM	To date,it would seem that published stolen material is fairly inconsequential every-day government goings on (at least from what papers have published). What's more, it's the kind of stuff that no-one but the intended recipients have the right to read, because there are various personal opinions about subject/people. As usual, papers will try to read governmental intention from personal emails - which is invariably wrong, and dangerous to the process.
Sams Dec 6, 2010 10:19 AM	Ace: "What's more, it's the kind of stuff that no-one but the intended recipients have the right to read" That would be funny if I didn't know you were trying to be serious.
Sams Dec 6, 2010 11:47 AM	The revelations in the leaked cables of how the US bribed and threatened smaller nations with hundreds of billions of dollars of financial aid and projects to literally buy votes to support their climate accord I think is extremely important. It should serve as a warning to us of just what the US government and its allies currently think of democratic process for one thing.
Ace Dec 6, 2010 12:43 PM	Well @Sams, I'm sure the last time you wrote a memo to your boss, you didn't write it with the thought that it might be read by Kim Jong Il, his brother Menta Lee Il Dick Cheney, some Russian hacker and the person you were writing the memo about. In fact, I would be suprised if the memo (like most enterprise emails) didn't have a confidentiality note on the bottom. On the other hand, perhaps you believe that if someone gets hold of the documents on your computer, they indeed have the right to show it to whom ever they wish. The world even. After all, these are transparent times we live in. According to Hubert, just because you wrote it doesn't mean it's yours. It actually belongs to everyone!
Sams Dec 6, 2010 1:13 PM	Ace: "I'm sure the last time you wrote a memo to your boss, you didn't write it with the thought that it might be read by " ... Heh, that was a long time ago because now I'm the managing director. But anyway .. if I had admitted to doing illegal, corrupt and/or massively unethical things in memos then I would deserve to have those things leaked, and I would be ashamed rather than angry and vengeful. The cable leaks were carefully chosen to expose the rotten inner workings of the US and its allies, and they do it well. Unless you are completely unobservant, it doesn't appear to be some random dump. You know of course that the press are reporting all of these leaks, as they do will all such leaks, and yet they, like Assange, are not charged with anything. Why is that do you think? It always amuses me that conservatives have such problems with discerning legality, morality and ethics that they are always tripping over their own statements that are so convoluted by their attempts to escape actually having to think about anything.
Ace Dec 6, 2010 3:54 PM	As much as I hate to elongate these conversations.....It's nothing about being illegal/corrupt etc. It's about being allowed to have a private conversation. I care very little about the contents of the leaks, who they make look good or bad or whatever. My problem is with the ethics of what WikiLeaks is doing. I am definitely interested in peoples right to privacy, even if those people do happen to be public servants. I am also a little concerned that it is very easy to publish a conversation snippet without the context that led to that conversation, and thereby destroy the meaning of it, or worse, make something fairly benign or routine look outrageous. 'Reality' TV shows do it all the time. Maybe if WikiLeaks was ISO90001 certified I would be more convinced.
Sams Dec 6, 2010 9:31 PM	Ace: "It's nothing about being illegal/corrupt etc. It's about being allowed to have a private conversation. " So should we conclude that if Ace accidentally overheard two people planning to kidnap and rape a child he would keep it to himself, because privacy trumps everything? Utter rubbish.
Sams Dec 6, 2010 9:38 PM	The funny thing is that if Ace actually believes the garbage he is advocating, he won't have read any of the cables lest he violate the US government's "privacy" (oxymoron since it is a public service), thus proving doesn't actually know what he was talking about.
Ace Dec 7, 2010 12:53 AM	It is true I haven't read any of these 'cables' - I've just seen the rather lame headlines. I was unaware this WikiLeaks chap had overheard all these conversations and jotted them down. I guess that might amount to eavesdropping. @Sams, you seem to be aligning comments that some American aide made about Rudds comments on the Chinese with the 'kidnap and rape of a child'. Isn't that a little far-fetched? In fact, I would have thought 'cables' were something more akin to emails, not overheard conversations. Why can governments not have the same expectation of privacy that is afforded to their citizens? Does the law change when you join the PSA? Depending upon where you are, laws exist to protect the secrecy of correspondence. The US had the 4th amendment and various bit of legislation relating to it. Various countries in Europe place secrecy of correspondence as legal principles of their constitutions. Australia also has various laws related to the same thing. It does seem reasonable, and I find it difficult to understand why various know-it-alls believe it is not reasonable to expect a private message to stay private. It seems like some people believe laws can be abandoned whenever it suits, or that laws that protect peoples rights somehow do not apply when the people are American government officials. Odd. What have we done as Australians to earn the right to read private correspondence between American govt officials? I'm sure this Assange chap publishes all his personal correspondence, private conversations etc, but that's his choice, and his right. He's right about one thing though, and that is he has the right as an Australian citizen to be afforded protection by the Australian government. The McClelland chap made some pretty idiotic comments which are clearly out of line with what we expect as Australian citizens. And he's the AG.
Flaschengeist Dec 7, 2010 8:40 AM	'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' 'Slaves do love their chains'
Sams Dec 7, 2010 9:42 AM	No point wasting time debating with the clueless. I'll wait for someone that has actually read the material.
Ace Dec 7, 2010 10:14 AM	The article is not about the contents of the leaks @Sams. You'll need to go to the daily gossip rags for that.
Pilotyoda Dec 8, 2010 7:08 PM	For the Record: In Australia it is NOT illegal to publish these documents. Whistleblowers have only rudimentary protection (even the proposed Whistleblower legislation, while legally protecting the leaker, won't make their life any less untenable in the workplace), if any, but the publication of the leaked documents is OK. The contents are already in every form of media (I can't vouch for China and other such jurisdictions). No one is suggesting Murdoch, et al, should be subject to the same threats as Assange has been, and in fact, the Murdoch press in the US also has published the content. In the uS, this matter has already been dealt with during the Vietnam was and their courts ruled that the publication of such confidential documents was protected under their 1st Ammendment (Free Speech). That is why they are trying to nail Wikileaks under some other charge, such as Treason. But Assange is not in the US and is a publisher that, like others, accepts submissions. before anyone claims that he should not, may i suggest they look at the ABC website which has a section where Whistleblowers can lodge information anonymously! That the senders of those cables are seriously embarrassed is a separate issue. Reminds me of those photographed outside of court before or after charges/convictions. They try to hide, but cannot blame the press for reporting their crimes. THey try to blame the press for "being in their face" but if they didn't do the wrong thing, it wouldn't have been an issue. Assange has not done the wrong thing. He is doing what he does best and should not be subject to death threats or false charges (which is what the leaks suggest is the MO of those referred to in those leaks).