4 ms·
Possibly to draw more attention and support. They've been having funding issues lately; they might think this is a good way to get out from under that. Of cour
by thaumaturgy 17y ago
Possibly to draw more attention and support.
They've been having funding issues lately; they might think this is a good way to get out from under that. Of course, it'll backfire if this turns out to be insignificant, a la the recent documents that they claimed were evidence of the U.S. trying to "shut them down".
- barrkel 17y agoI'd feel a lot more inclined to donate if they were clearer about where the money went and why they need so much for what amounts to a moderated and anonymized public file share.
- rms 17y agoIt seems quite likely that they have extraordinary legal costs and that they can't afford to release new info without the safe funds for their their legal defense.
- smackfu 17y agoIIRC, it was basically funding a couple of salaries. Which uses up money a lot faster than hosting costs. Edit: Oops, it's apparently $600k to fully fund with salaries, and $200k to just fund operations. Still seems crazy high.
- biafra 17y agoIt seems high but they are not hosting this information on an easily rented server. First they have to anonymize the data but keep it as authentic as possible. Second (and this is directly from one of the operators of WikiLeaks) they have to host it in a way that it crosses at least 3 jurisdictions from them to you. They were operating this out of their own pockets. Donations were scarce when they just asked (for years for it) but were still online. When they took away the information and asking for donations they went way up. I did not like this to but he explained it, and it made sense to me. The one person I personally know from WikiLeaks has been online 20 minutes ago. So at least he seems to be fine.