I've been wondering this for some time myself, about why it would take $600,000 to run a site like wikileaks. Well, it seems I'm not alone:
http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-dream.htm

And not only that, they do bring up a good point, how secure is the damn thing ? Not very, from the looks of it. I'd say cryptome is a lot better. They ask for more reasonable amounts and for something, like $25 for a 2 DVDs full of info.

I don't even think wikileaks has all the great info that has been put out, especially in comparison to cryptome and other sites which update pretty much every day. I think it's just a scam, he's gonna use the money to buy drugs or alcohol or even more sinister things (he's a former haxxor).

If you believe anything printed in the telegraph and then repeated by a "wikileaks insider", then I guess anything's possible.

Who's to say this isn't a FUD campaign organised by someone with an agenda ?

I'm surprised you missed that angle, given your sig.

Maybe hosting sites that the government keep trying to shut down, costs a bit more in "protection" money than your average virtual host in a server farm ?

Do you think $600k is a reasonable value for hosting wikileaks ? I don't, so I'm more willing to believe that it's not worth it.

It's true that the gubmint wants to take it down, and this possible FUD will help, but I think if they really wanted to take it down they would have already.

I too would like to see a list of past expenditures and a list of security measures, and maybe a list of what they will do with this large sum. Maybe if they put that up they will even get more people to donate.

My reaction when I first saw that sum posted, $600,000 ... I thought: That's a lot of money, do they really expect to be able to raise this much every year ? They have a problem. Maybe they should cut costs.

Its alittle high 300K seems more likly but LOL oh well.

This is not just hosting fees that's quoted. I repeat, you believe the telegraph at your peril.

How much would you say 1 high profile legal case would cost to defend in the US ?

Wikileaks have defended over 100.

The "article" you quoted also says it costs $200,000 "just to keep the lights on". That seems like hosting and hardware to me, not 600k. You could easily blow 400k on lawyers bills.

Possibly another troll thread. What happened to the paranoid level of skepticism you usually show towards anything and everything, TeX?
I kind of expected you to be writing about how this is actually a US/Illuminati black-ops conspiracy to take Wikileaks down, given the amount sensitive of information they have released.

Yep, this thread has consistently failed to make me laugh However, for an organisation that says it makes things more transparent and assists oversight (does it say or imply that?) where is their own transparency? Why not just say, even broadly, what the 600k covers?

Well don't they have the freedom of information thing in Sweden ? Anybody could see their accounts if they are set up as a legitimate non-profit.

Besides, according to wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Background

So, I'd bet that that top end figure is the one that's been misquoted by the telegraph and then by the "insider". And they even got the currency wrong ! £528k for around 800 staff per year, plus servers and other running costs isn't a lot, and it's a red herring anyway. That works out at around £440 per person per year after the hardware, hosting and other running costs are taken out.

But that is in effect how much isn't being spent, it's only the £176k on costs.

It also says that they (wikileaks) haven't paid for any lawyers yet.

Until the site comes back up properly, none of this complaining about lack of accountability is relevant.

That is a good point, and I noticed that you can click on any of the links on wikileaks about donating, and find nothing about what the donation will help fund. Most organization have such a thing, but it seems wikileaks doesn't post this info, or maybe doesn't want to ?

You should know by now that I'm no conspiracy theorist, I'm more of a devil's advocate. I want to argue against the majority view and see if their argument holds up. I probably should not have said this, but you'll probably forget about it soon enough.

I very rarely post or say my true thoughts, and if I do, you won't know when. I often decide based upon personal research, response to the issue, usually if people don't even want to discuss an issue this means that this issue is very important and further research is warranted, because the people things don't question or refuse to are often the most incorrect and damaging beliefs that they hold.

He's telling us that Infowars is an unreliable information source. Surely he is showing a level of skepticism? Not the fun sort, the real sort.

Another thing is that, unlike many people, you can change my mind with a good argument. When I say good, I mean solid and logical. The truth is like a mirror that has been shattered into a million pieces, you'll find the shards spread about everywhere, but you'll only know that it's the truth if it makes sense, and you can only do that if you reflect upon it (think about it == look into the mirror). Most people ignore these shards because they are taught to.

Uhmmm, different thread perhaps...?

I dunno, poor old Tex - damned if he do, damned if he don't.

I dont't actually see how this thread is related to Infowars.

I don't either, I didn't get this from infowars, I got it from cryptome.