Slashdot Mirror
Are Wikileaks Servers In a Nuclear Bunker?
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian has a two page spread on the background of some of the Wikileaks people, the Wikileaks scheme for "an open-source democratic intelligence agency" and the possible location of its secret servers — an abandoned US nuclear weapons base at Greenham Common and a radar station in Kent. "The Kent bunker is deep underground and supposed to survive 30 days after a nuclear strike.""
Whats the point of placing the server in a nuclear bunker when you can just snip the cable (both metaphorically and physically) to limit the access.
How would they afford such a premises?
Do sites like Wikileaks really have enough spare funding to pay for something like this?
It's interesting if true, would a nuclear bunker have internet access? Wouldn't it be quite a costly task getting internet access into such a bunker?
To be honest, even then it sounds like overkill, why would Wikileaks even need to survive a nuclear strike? Surely there are plenty of secure enough premises elsewhere that aren't nuclear-proofed that would be just as suitable for a whole lot less cost and hassle? I'm sure if they did get nuked we'd have a lot more to worry about than wikileaks future to be honest!
....lose touch with the way of living without all the advances such that should a disaster happen that destroys our advances, would we know enough about how to live without that we could survive it with minimal loses due to just plain ignorance of living without the advances?
Where would wikileaks be, even though they could perhaps transmit, who would have the receivers?
Say a nuclear event happen, but not one of man but rather nature, ie asteroid, record breaking sun flares, etc. that disabled/destroyed our computer technology and satellite system.
Imagine the mindset change that would be required to just survive without computers.
So the idea of wikileaks being in some nuclear bunker... its just a location that may no longer be secret.
If you remove the word "nuclear" for a moment, a bunker would be a good place to prevent theft or sabotage of servers used for purposes like these.
Nuclear bunker? That's really cute.
Fortifying your server inside physical security is painfully 1960's thinking. Your defenses will be defeated by the power of the subpoena and heavy handed back room diplomacy between governments.
We're going to watch the Pirate Bay issue play itself out accordingly. It doesn't matter if they mirror/move the tracker servers out of Sweden; the U.S. State department, acting on the behest of government officials beholden to enormously wealthy and influential lobbyists and IP (intellectual property) owning media companies - will suddenly start reminding X, Y and Z governments (in countries now hosting illicit material) that the huge agricultural trade deal they want with the U.S. may suddenly stall out because "we don't do business with countries that sponsor or turn a blind eye to the theft of American property." Oh, you wanted us to vote FOR your membership to the WTO? Well, about that pirate MP3 website hosted in your country, getting 500,000 hits a day..
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Bunkers are handy against EMP's too. You also generally get good overall physical security with a bunker, and data centers built in them tend to follow through with more practical aspects of security, like escorts instead of just letting you find your own way, as is common in most.
Bunkers also make for a relatively inexpensive readymade secure location, generally with good immortal power and HVAC. People don't put data centers in bunkers because of zomg sekure, they do it because it's often more practical than building your own from scratch.