The WikiLeaks website, currently online via a Swiss domain name
(WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) — One of the interesting sort of incidental outcomes of the intense scrutiny around WikiLeaks,since the site released the package of secret US diplomatic communications known as cables last Sunday, has been the fact that web hosting, along with a list of other Internet services that includes DNS and online payment processing, has made its way squarely into the public eye more so than with any other big story in recent memory.
Certainly, there are instances where a Rackspace outage becomes a popular topic on Twitter, or the shut-down of a controversial website makes the local news. And Go Daddy’s Super Bowl ads tend to shine the spotlight on web hosting, albeit briefly. But WikiLeaks, and its relationships with its Internet service providers has been big, big international news for almost two weeks.
Last week, it was major news that Amazon had removed the site from its cloud computing service. In the time since, the DNS provider EveryDNS, PayPal, Mastercard and Visa have all cut off their services to the site.
In each case, the company cited a violation of its acceptable use policy or terms of service as the reason for cutting off the site. But each case also carried at least the suggestion of a political decision – either outright opposition to WikiLeaks itself or bending to the pressure of the US government. The Amazon move, in particular, had political overtones, making news mostly due to an announcement issued by US senator Joe Lieberman, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
With any hosting dispute that is (rightly or wrongly) deemed an issue of free speech, the opposition, at least online, will be loud, vocal and vehement. But the opposition in this case has gone a step beyond that. The 4Chan-based user base, collectively known as “Anonymous” seems to be at the helm of “Operation: Payback,” a project that seems intended to shut down sites it claims “bowed to government pressure,” through denial-of-service attacks and other assorted acts of hacking. The name is reportedly the same used in attacks on the RIAA and MPAA, in response to their anti-piracy efforts.
Hosting providers are in a difficult spot. On the one hand, a service provider doesn’t want to go to bat for a site that is blatantly flaunting the law. On the other, many service providers don’t want to be (or be seen as) an instrument for agencies and organizations that want to cut off the operations of websites they consider threatening or objectionable, without due process.
The difficult part is that while there are black-and-white examples of good (a dissident blog communicating from Iran during last year’s contested election, maybe) and bad (a site selling counterfeit designer purses, for instance), there is a much larger grey area, occupied by sites like The Pirate Bay, and even WikiLeaks.
Compounding the problem is what seems to be a general lack of clarity about how, exactly, the material released by WikiLeaks is illegal or, as has also been suggested, treasonous.
This is precisely why hosts have to have carefully worded policies around the types of content they are willing to host, and around the process they take in responding to complaints about content on their networks, whether from the RIAA, the FBI or Joe Lieberman.
At this point, though, WikiLeaks is a whole other animal. The issue is big enough at this point that if content from WikiLeaks is on your servers, you should know it. If you don’t, you’re sure to find out soon. And if you have yet to remove it from those servers, that amounts to a political statement, like it or not.
French host OVH is all over the news this week because of its decision to request a judicial review of its responsibility associated with removing WikiLeaks from its servers, and to continue hosting the site until that review is complete.
What isn’t clear is what the impact of the politically-motivated hacking activity of Operation: Payback will be. Some are no doubt looking for an excuse to cause trouble. But for those involved who really are politically motivated, the outcome doesn’t seem promising.
It is doubtful that Visa, Amazon or any of the other targets would be more likely to go to bat for a site like WikiLeaks in the future for fear of retribution. The far more likely scenario is that more material will be added to the terms of service at these organizations, making it possible for them to avoid hosting sites that might end up being political lightning rods in the future.
Good or bad, it is rare that a corporation has the opportunity or motivation to make a grand political gesture (Google pulling out of China earlier this year might be a good example). In a lot of cases these companies have a responsibility to shareholders to minimize risk and liability.
One thing that is certain is that the nuances of policy in the web hosting business are in the public eye right now in a way they never have been before.
About Liam Eagle
Liam Eagle has worked as a contributor to the Web Host Industry Review since its inception in 2000, and as editor since 2003. He has been editor of the WHIR's print magazine since its launch. His daily involvement in the gathering and reporting of Web hosting news and his regular interaction with Web hosting leaders gives him an uncommonly broad appreciation of the issues and tends facing the business. Through his WHIR blog, Liam spots Web hosting trends and offers opinions on the industry-wide impacts of major developments and the motivation behind big announcements. Follow him on Twitter @liameagle
No related posts.
