Wikileaks needs money

[gwillen]

Apparently WikiLeaks has suspended operations due to lack of funds.

If you like them, and you have money, give them some money. I am.

ETA: It's also worth noting that they can't use low-bid hosting -- they get constant takedown notices and lawsuit threats, so they have to use so-called "bulletproof" hosting, most often used by spammers, so they don't get shut down every time someone threatens their webhost with a lawsuit. This adds a substantial multiplier to their hosting cost.

Comments

[ikeepaleopard]

Maybe I don't understand what wikileaks does all day, but it sounds like they need way more money than I'd expect. What do they do with it?

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

Pay for bandwidth.

[ikeepaleopard]

They have $200,000 worth of bandwidth costs every year? There has got to be a more efficient system.

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

Read my added note about "bulletproof" hosting -- they can't use a low-bid webhost, because they'd get shut down as soon as someone sent a takedown notice or threatened to sue. Their host presumably costs a lot more, in exchange for ignoring takedown notices and spurious (and perhaps nonspurious) legal threats. (It sounds like they are hosted by some of the same people who work on ThePirateBay.)

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

This answer:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/38874.html

Suggests that a T3 can run $150k/yr. That doesn't include hosting/storage/power/etc., and Wikileaks is citing $200k/yr as their expenses not including staff. So it seems pretty reasonable.

[mellowcupcake.livejournal.com]

That sounds preposterously high. Like, stupidly so.

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

For a point of comparison, in 2007 it cost about a million a year to run Wikipedia:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

I assume it's more now. I don't know if you guys will consider that a point in favor of or against wikileaks' $200k, but note that they tend to serve up large PDFs and other bandwidth-heavy content, whereas wikipedia mostly serves text.

[mellowcupcake.livejournal.com]

That's actually a really interesting breakdown of the costs for a huge site. I don't know how big Wikileaks is compared to Wikipedia, but if they're in the same general class of organizations, I guess I'd believe that.

I'm with Akiva though - they could probably do it more efficiently.

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

As mentioned in the update I am about to make to the post, Wikileaks also has a cost multiplier on their hosting due to legal problems. Because they get constant takedown notices and lawsuits, they can't host with normal providers -- they have to use bulletproof (i.e. spammer) hosting, which costs a lot more.

[mellowcupcake.livejournal.com]

That's a very good point!

[platypuslord.livejournal.com]

Hrm.

The link above dates from 2002.
This link: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/networkcables/f/t1_t3_lines.htm is undated, and puts the price of a T3 at 3000$/month.
This link (from an ad): http://www.usaccess-llc.com/t3.html says the price of a T3 is "from $1416/month".

But it's not implausible that wikileaks might have more than one T3. I have no sense for how much bandwidth they use.

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

Read my added note about "bulletproof" hosting -- they can't use a low-bid webhost, because they'd get shut down as soon as someone sent a takedown notice or threatened to sue. Their host presumably costs a lot more, in exchange for ignoring takedown notices and spurious (and perhaps nonspurious) legal threats. (It sounds like they are hosted by some of the same people who work on ThePirateBay.)

[jcreed.livejournal.com]

Fascinating! I always vaguely assumed bulletproof hosting was just for spammers and scammers and the like, but this is a great example of why it's not.

I still would hold onto the hope that some distributed (and therefore more money- and network-efficient) thingy would catch on sufficiently to serve the same purpose they are serving.

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

I would agree, but I'm still giving them money because we aren't there yet. (Bittorrent is an interesting suggestion that showed up on Digg; but on reflection, any distributed solution is likely to get participants in legal trouble for distributing the materials in question...)

[ikeepaleopard]

Whatever happened to freenet? Wanking?

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

Did freenet ever work?

[ikeepaleopard]

I don't think so, but in theory it is the safe, bittorentish thing we all think is the correct solution, which is why I'm wondering what every happened to it.

[saetherion.livejournal.com]

I gave $25. I'm pretty broke right now but I figure if I just spent $50 on a sweater it's pretty damn hypocritical not to spend half that combating mass media.

Thanks for linking to this.

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

Thanks for donating!