Reply #50: The reason you don't 'get it' or understand my point.

[RandomThoughts]

Is because you are talking about the legality of them retracting the books. Or talking about the system they have.

I am talking about maintaining the integrity of information within systems. And criticizing that system.

They are two different topics.

And it does not matter why they removed the books, but the removal points to a capability that could be implemented for any reason. Regardless of why, or even if it took place, if the capability exist to do something it should be discussed.



Every account which has whispernet access and has given permission to Amazon

Just because people have to agree to it, or it is clearly in the TOS, or it is implemented does not mean it is a system that adds security to an information system. If information is held in a central point, or under the control of a central point, it is vulnerable. Regardless of what is agreed or legal or said or done. The point is it is a bad idea.

You have not addressed my point. Information held in one place is easier to alter, especially when in digital form. Systems that advocate that, even if in TOS, add to that lack of information security. Even if that capability is not used, the potential of it being used makes it something to not move towards, but to move away from.