Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Nuclear Bunker Where Wikileaks Will Be Located

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the can-we-have-a-party-here dept.

Security 187

An anonymous reader writes "Engadget has photos of 'Pionen White Mountains, the nuclear bunker in which Wikileaks will locate some of its servers. It was excavated 98 feet underground, in a rock hill in the center of Stockholm, Sweden, during the Cold War.' It looks like they hired the same interior designer who decorated Batman's lair."

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Disappointed (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426416)

What a disappointment. I clicked through expecting a robotic T-Rex and a giant penny.

-Peter

Re:Disappointed (2, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427242)

What is the point of it being underground like this?

To survive some kind of explosive attack?

Anybody that is at all determined to disable access to this server would just need to snip the internet cable running into this bunker (and yes, jam/intercept any wireless connection it may have) and then prevent WikiLeaks from fixing it.

Re:Disappointed (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427426)

It's there:

1. To make the servers physically safer
2. Because it impresses investors

It's not in a bunker to ensure uptime, but to ensure istime.

Re:Disappointed (2, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427462)

If the Swedish Police, or US government, for some reason decides that Wikileaks must be shut down an underground bunker won't help at all. It seems pointless, but then Wikileaks is all about the drama.

Re:Disappointed (2, Insightful)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428124)

Because they are underground it is much easier to control the climate. They are not as affected by poor weather going on upstairs. And let's not forget the batcave factor. That would be a very cool place to hang out.

Re:Disappointed (1)

dziban303 (540095) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427564)

98 feet underground? That wouldn't survive much of a nuclear attack.

Re:Disappointed (3, Interesting)

mldi (1598123) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427840)

Depends on what type of nuclear attack. A bomb targeting the city it resides in would be detonated in the air for maximum mayhem. This bunker would have ZERO issue with that.

For bunker busters, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster [wikipedia.org] :

Altering the shape of the projectile to incorporate an ogive shape has yielded substantial results. Rocket sled testing at Eglin Air Force Base has demonstrated penetrations of 100 to 150 feet (46 m) in concrete[citation needed] when traveling at 4,000 ft/s (1,200 m/s). The reason for this is liquefaction of the concrete in the target, which tends to flow over the projectile. Variation in the speed of the penetrator can either cause it to be vaporized on impact (in the case of traveling too fast), or to not penetrate far enough (in the case of traveling too slow). An approximation for the penetration depth is obtained with an impact depth formula derived by Sir Isaac Newton.

So, it still depends. What material is between the surface and this bunker? I'd imagine a hard rock would have a lot more stopping power than concrete (due to how they penetrated the concrete). Either way, it sounds like if you would line the bunker with a pretty thick layer of steel in addition, you'd probably turn out OK.

Someone in the know correct me on this.

Looks familiar (4, Informative)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426430)

I'm reasonably sure Slashdot did a story on this underground data center about a year ago, maybe a bit more. I know I've seen these photos before.

Re:Looks familiar (1)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426488)

True. Summary sounds like wikileaks is going to use some kind of lost and forgotten vault...uh I mean bunker.

Re:Looks familiar (1)

xnpu (963139) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427100)

My thoughts exactly. Yes it's a cool place, but it's not new and it's not going to make Wikileaks any better/worse than it is.

Next.

Re:Looks familiar (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427676)

Chuck?

Nuke It From Orbit (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426444)

Now taking bets on whether the American Gov't will seriously consider nuking Sweden or not.

no a bunker makes it easy to cut the data / power (3, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426528)

no a bunker makes it easy to cut the data / power cable!

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426552)

Not necessary. We'll just send Hillary Clinton in there armed with a spatula, an umbrella, and a 28oz can of SpaghettiOs.

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427120)

Is this what the political right has become? Pointless aimless senseless drivel? Wait... don't answer that. I think I know the answer and don't want to hear it.

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427306)

No, the political left has just become a big WHOOSH!

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (2, Interesting)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427450)

I'm not part of the "political right" nor am I part of the "political left"... But I am able to make a joke about someone in the political world without the joke being politically slanted. Honest. Read it again and substitute anyone else's name in there. :p

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426634)

What's the earliest date you are willing to pay out?

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426660)

Won't somebody please think of the hot Swedish women!

Oh wait, this is Slashdot... don't think about it! Get back to work!

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (1)

Criliric (879949) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427724)

way ahead of you on that one ;)

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427074)

Nah, 98 ft is just right for a GBU-28 [wikipedia.org] . No need for a nuke.

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (2, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427286)

Nah, 98 ft is just right for a GBU-28 [wikipedia.org] . No need for a nuke.

"It proved capable of penetrating over 30 metres (100 ft) of earth or 6 metres (20 ft) of solid concrete."

This is 30 meters of granite, not earth. Still, I wouldn't want to be underneath it.

Re:Nuke It From Orbit (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427662)

30 meters of granite is approximately equivalent to 30 meters of concrete. I'd say you'd be dusty and a bit banged up but otherwise absolutely fine.

Why? (4, Insightful)

zabby39103 (1354753) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426456)

What benefit is there to using these bunkers? If Wikileaks is shut down it will be by court order, not by nuclear missile. I don't see the purpose of paying for their fancy fountain/lighting set up with your server maintenance fees.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426484)

Although some of it is frills, doing it underground does largely eliminate seasonal variation and might make security and general environmental control easier. For ordinary server rooms that can be a big expense.

two words: "heat dissipation" (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427076)

bunkers or caves usually ARE cool and don't swing radically up or down in temperature...

until you put a bunch of servers in them

then they heat up, and STAY hot, and are harder to cool than on the surface because there is nowhere to dissipate the heat

also: they are hard to get supplies to and build in, they have air quality issues, etc

yeah: they look really cool and they sound really cool, but in actual practicality, the idea of servers in caves or bunkers sucks

Re:two words: "heat dissipation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33428140)

I don't know about this specific bunker, but in Europe it's common to have bunkers right in the midle of cities, I have been in one that was used as a parking lot. So they are VERY convenient. Also, dissipating heat through pipes in the ground kicks ass :-)

Re:Why? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426524)

Because the bunker/data center is designed for 100% uptime and such.

Re:Why? (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426532)

Yeah it sounds a bit over top. Like maybe someone is paranoid or just into fantasy.

Besides the weak link is the internet connection.

Because they can (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426644)

That is enough.

Re:Why? (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426684)

Maybe they are planning a world "undernet"?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426708)

Publicity.

Re:Why? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426786)

The US would shut it down by Court order. Countries like Kenya have been embarrassed by WikiLeaks in the past and maybe North Korea and China and South American drug cartels will be the same some day. They could be more likely to send some mercenaries etc. The Mafia in America tried sending car and even boat bombs to silence witnesses.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427876)

I kind of had the impression wikileaks was primarily opposed to Western Democracies. It's a lot easier and safer to criticize nations that follow the rule of law.

Re:Why? (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426792)

They'll just fill it with lawyers.

Re:Why? (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426932)

In one of the comments from TFA.

The bunkers are great for these kinds of facilities; cool, easy to control the climate/moisture etc and above all untouchable from the outside.

Re:Why? (1)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427056)

My initial reaction was that it looked like an awfully expensive place to host a website financed through donations, probably based on considerations involving no small measure of publicity and grandstanding. But, it occurs to me that a coloc taking these physical security measures are probably operating in a niche market which also requires various other controls more relevant to Wikileaks. Maybe they have a specialised legal team in place enabling a much more aggressive approach to legal risks, for example.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427254)

It is an old nuclear proof military installation that is used by an ISP now. They are hosting sites now among them Wikileaks.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427514)

Is is the case with 90% of what Wikileaks does, it's for show and lacks any real purpose or substance.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427872)

If Wikileaks is shut down it will be by court order, not by nuclear missile.

Or they could just cut the network cable. No use running a web server that's not connected to a network.

Servers? What servers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426468)

We ain't got no steenkin' servers. We spent all our money with Gary, our Designer.

and you can have your own! (5, Informative)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426474)

there are some decommissioned missile sites out there for sale. here [missilebases.com] is one site with listings.

anyone with enough tin foil and a couple million $ can have their very own underground fortress!

Re:and you can have your own! (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427534)

there are some decommissioned missile sites out there for sale. here [missilebases.com] is one site with listings.

anyone with enough tin foil and a couple million $ can have their very own underground fortress!

Are you crazy?! That's exactly what the government wants you to do! When all of us who know the truth have finally situated ourselves all locked up tight in these bunkers they'll open the doors to the real missile bunker right beneath us - and then nuke us, minimizing collateral damage. That's why those bunkers are built so strong - not to prevent attacks from the outside getting in, but to prevent fallout/etc from the inside getting out!

Cooling? (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426492)

Who's got the breakdown on the cooling strategy for the batcave?

Re:Cooling? (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426638)

Who's got the breakdown on the cooling strategy for the batcave?

Alfred Pennyworth.

call me when.... (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426506)

... they finish building the ion cannon out front.

Here's another one just as bad: Let's hope they stop having leaks when they start breeding Rachni. Snap!
-goes to corner and puts on dunce cap-

What's the point? (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426522)

This is just grandstanding really. A nuclear bunker data center is no more secure from law enforcement than any other data center. Sure, you get better protection from natural disasters and whatnot, but if the cops come in with a court order to shut it down, the nuclear bunker people are no safer than anyone else unless they plan on hiring an army and defending the place to the death. Even then, the government just needs to get a court order to force all of their upstream network providers to cut them off and they'll be just as screwed as any other data center. After all, "leaking" documents to a collection of servers underground is not particularly effective if those servers can't connect to the Internet.

The survivability of Wikileaks in Sweden is entirely dependent on the Swedish government's willingness to let them be there, and nothing else. The servers could exist in a cave underground or a data center with a big sign that says "Wikileaks is here" in downtown Stockholm. Either way, if the Swedish governments decides they want it gone, it's going to be gone.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426580)

I agree. But I think this is a ruse/diversion/etc. My guess is that the real servers will be located elsewhere. Security by obscurity.

Re:What's the point? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426926)

The internet, that isn't how it works.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427090)

I didn't make myself clear. I should have said the "real data servers will be located elsewhere." So the police would be able to come in and shut down the net server and take away all the servers. But Wikileaks will be able to get the data back online within minutes from their hidden data server. That starts the police process all over again in different jurisdiction.

Re:What's the point? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428074)

I didn't make myself clear. I should have said the "real data servers will be located elsewhere."

The servers should be replicated in many different jurisdictions, including the USA.

Re:What's the point? (1)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428056)

The internet, that isn't how it works.

Are you sure?
Can you tell me, then, the precise addresses of the root nameservers?
The basis of the internet, that is exactly how it works.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427442)

Correct. The real servers are underground in Langley.

Re:What's the point? (2, Interesting)

siriuskase (679431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427688)

This data center is as real as any mirror site. It has an advantage in that if the government simply pulls the plug, it pulls down every website hosted there. That would be a very unpopular move. People who wouldn't ordinarily rally around Wikileaks will get interested if their email, voip, or web are threatened. If, instead, the government uses legal processes, it could take days or weeks of injunctions and stays of injunctions and good old fashioned foot dragging by the ISP that operates the facility. The Swedish news would be full of "what happens when the internet goes down" scare stories, even if they only wind up shutting down the Wikileaks server. So either way makes the government into a bad guy to the general public.

So, it's all theater. The best protection for Wikileaks is to have mirror sites in several countries, and don't publish the locations of any but this one that's particularly interesting. Then, if this one comes under attack, Wikileaks can just announce "never fear, Sealand [sealandgov.org] is here"

Re:What's the point? (3, Interesting)

tomtefar (935007) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426758)

More specifically, it is up to the judicial branch of the Swedish government to decide. The cabinet and parliament has very little say in how the authorities carry out the law. The few times they have tried, the Swedish press goes berserk and accuses them of minister ruling (ministerstyre), which is forbidden.

Sweden (2, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427424)

Has shown that they are willing to do the xxAA's bidding. Ask DVD-Jon.

Re:Sweden (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427660)

Has shown that they are willing to do the xxAA's bidding. Ask DVD-Jon.

Yes, they have shown that they are willing to do the xxAA's bidding. DVD-Jon is unrelated, he is from Norway and has as far as I know never had any kind of interaction with neither Swedish government nor Swedish press.

Re:Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427906)

Did you mean Norway?

weakest link is the external data cable (2, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426868)

You have to connect to the network somehow.

It's the Nuclear Option (3, Interesting)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427070)

Let's assume, just assume, that Wikileaks has some more juicy tidbits it hasn't been sharing.

Now if they have a location that cannot be broken into physically, and if they have a satellite upload rig, HAM radio, or a similar guaranteed-broadcast failsafe, then there is no way short of abject violence (bombs or similar) to stop them from spreading the dirtiest secrets they have should any determined foe show up at their door and demand that they turn over servers.

Now, given time or the right equipment, an agency can get through even a nuclear bunker, but if they need time, the broadcast capability becomes a serious threat, and if they need equipment, there's most likely going to be... well, leaks that it's getting ready to be mobilized, and then we come to the time issue again. Setting things up to get into a hardened facility without tripping a safeguard like that is tricky.

Or maybe not, but it's food for thought.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427110)

It could offer some advantage, depending on the size of the balls of those responsible for the data center. If they close the 30 ton door and barricade themselves when the police arrives they can rally enough public support to force the police to withdraw.
An raid is preferably made fast to get it over with before those responsible for it has to answer questions from the press.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427210)

It would be better to be in a 100 boring closets around the world than one bunker at the mercy of one government. Having people the people distributed across the planet would help as well. Letting on to that would be a good thing to, since law enforcement in one place might not even try to shut it down since they know it's already up out of their jurisdiction.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33428020)

Wikileaks, NORAD, and the Iranian nuke program are all on the same page now.

Yea.. (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426564)

Seems like a wise use of money. I mean, sure, they could have bought a normal data center for far cheaper, but does the normal data center protect against nuclear missiles? You see, these are the questions you have to ask Meg.

Re:Yea.. (1)

malakai (136531) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427816)

Sure they could have paid interns to help them redact out civilian informants name/information to prevent any retribution when they leak classified military documents, but DID YOU SEE THAT FOUNTAIN!?! IT HAZ COLOR!

A bunker? Makes a lot of sense (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426572)

Here's why:

It's pretty cool at those depths so simply pumping air around can save in air conditioning utility bills. On the other hand, dealing with human waste often needs additional equipment though not expensive.

Re:A bunker? Makes a lot of sense (1)

paazin (719486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426934)

It's pretty cool at those depths so simply pumping air around can save in air conditioning utility bills. On the other hand, dealing with human waste often needs additional equipment though not expensive.

Mostly because there is very little generation of heat underground so the air takes roughly the same temperature as the surrounding rock.

Unfortunately when you're dealing with dozens of servers that's going to generate a _great_ deal more heat than can be dissipated, so unless you have A/C or great ventilation you'll be enclosed within a crematorium.

Um, which site again? (2, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426578)

Engadget has photos of 'Pionen White Mountains, the nuclear bunker in which Wikileaks will locate some of its servers. It was excavated 98 feet underground, in a rock hill in the center of Stockholm, Sweden, during the Cold War.' It looks like they hired the same interior designer who decorated Batman's lair

Even though the summary mentions Engadget as the source, the TFA links to Gizmodo and as far as I know Engadget has nothing about this on their homepage.

Re:Um, which site again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427720)

Exactly!!

Bunker Buster Headline From The Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426582)

Unexplained disappearance of Stockholm blamed on Julian Assuange having sex with an underage warhead.

Fake photos? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426588)

Either the photos are fake, or that place [gawkerassets.com] keeps changing hands.

Seriously that's like the third if not fourth time I've seen this exact photo used over the last two or three years of Slashdot news.

Re:Fake photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426800)

those "photos" are cgi, they could not be any faker (gosh)

Re:Fake photos? (1)

Preacher X (545221) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427048)

Actually, this is a pretty well documented "green" datacenter. Covered by networkworld magazine and a host of others. It is not owned by wikileaks, they just host there.

Re:Fake photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427988)

and this excuses the op from not being able to differentiate between real and blatantly obvious computer renderings?

Re:Fake photos? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426856)

It's a colo facility. Most likely there's been another story or two about for the "cool factor". Seriously I don't think they're down there for the "bunker". If the Swedish government is like most other governments when they sell off useless Cold War bunkers, the colo people probably got it for and song and realized it was perfect for servers. Since it was intended for medium to long term human habitation in the event of a total infrastructure failure, it's got built in pretty much everything you need, and it's easy to cool besides. Sound like they had to add some extra power generation, but otherwise it's perfect. Probably got it for less than a similarly equipped data center would cost to build too, 8and* you get to use the "cool factor" in your sales literature.

Wikileask may have chosen to host there for the symbolism, but I doubt that's why the data center is there.

Re:Fake photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427642)

The colo provider Bahnhof has made a few statements about integrity, freedom of speech and legal resistance against police intervention. I guess the Pirate party rents a rack or two down there and a few U is used for WikiLeaks and The PirateBays webfrontend. If the Pirate party gets a few elected in septembers election they have promised to move Pirate Bay to the house of goverment.

There is also a VPN anonymous service running in that bunker...

Re:Fake photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427018)

Thats the place. It doesn't change hands, its been in the hands of Bahnhof all the time (with that decoration, before that it was a military bunker, i'm sure it didn't look like that then.)
Here are some panorama pictures from the bunker
http://www.fotograf.nu/360/bahnhof/

Who's paying for all of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426664)

If you look online missile silos that can also act as bunkers run in the area of a few $100K and the big ones are in the millions, so there is that. Then there is the cost of fixing the place up, I'm guessing they are going to put in a back-up generator and there is the cost of maintiance on that. The initial cost is probably going to be over a million easy and then the regular up keep as well. So who is flipping the bill on all of this?

Re:Who's paying for all of this (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427480)

Seriously. I'd have expected Wikileaks to be on a shoestring budget -- and even if its budget is generous, I'd be expecting them to be very prudent about their use of resources. Why would they be using this over-the-top interior decoration?

super spies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426668)

so they ARE super evil genius quadruple spies!

Lets be realistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426698)

Wikileaks is making no friends in the international community. A bunker in Sweden is not going to stop the Americans, Chinese or Russians from doing something about them. They may hide from other nations laws by residing in Sweden, but they will not hide from there espionage or guns.

Re:Lets be realistic (2, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428146)

Somehow I can see the US being more interested on taking out Wikileaks that Osama or the-like.

Why? Security theatre must be protected so that draconian laws can stay on the books.

The irony is:
-if they get Osama, Joe-six-pack will think that 9/11 is finally over and things can go back to normal.
-If they take out Wikileaks, the world stays in the dark (OMG, new dark ages?) and the truth is what the USA says it is.

Seriously? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426738)

The data's got to come out of a hole somewhere.

Wikileaks can be defeated with a pair of dykes.

Re:Seriously? (2, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426876)

Down the rabbit hole and back again.

I doubt think this is to protect the servers against military/police action by legitimate authorities. This is probably the DR site they forgot to build.

They need to bolster security, because Wikileaks might have information that bad actors would love to get their hands on in uncensored form.

If the military wanted to blow up servers, they could simply secure cooperation from the operators of the datacenter, and force their way in, less collataral damage that way.

If it was really war... a nuke would deny access to the servers from the surface, and might be combined with bunker busters

Re:Seriously? (0, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427112)

Wikileaks are the bad actors. Hence the need to run to Sweden to hide.

At least, until they release some Swedish secrets.

They can't hope to locate themselves anywhere. They've made themselves extralegal in all jurisdictions. Like all the other "pirate" organizations through history, they will eventually have to find space that nobody owns but them.

As for how to defeat this thing, aside from cutting off its outside contact and obviating their mission, if you want to get inside you just wait for someone to go in, kidnap them, and use them as a hostage. The people inside will open up. They're hippie anarchists, not Navy Seals. So unless they're psychopathic (not counting that out), the prospect of watching another hippie anarchist get flensed will send them running for the security keypad. "Let us in or we dice your friend. And if you destroy the data, we'll dice both of you."

So they still have quite a bit to fear from the other bad actors who want their data.

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428100)

They can't hope to locate themselves anywhere. They've made themselves extralegal in all jurisdictions.

There are probably some European countries where they could be prosecuted but they have not violated any USA law.

2 Dykes you say? (5, Funny)

poity (465672) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427058)

I assume one dyke to distract the employees with a tirade on modern gender roles in the gay community while the other sneaks in with a sledgehammer.

pretty normal (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426770)

when i worked at www.iol.unh.edu, networkworld or someone like that did an article about us. since we were just a bunch of server racks, they brought in all these stupid colored lights, killed the main lights.. all the kids working there got hollywood concealer jobs. they ended up looking like mimes, covering the nerd complexion. and of course, the place is 120 kids, 8 females... after 16 kids had photos taken, it looked like a 50% ratio. go figure. photography is a quick and easy way to stretch the truth.

Darn Truth Extremists... (1)

otaku244 (1804244) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426772)

he's going OSAMA!

Nigga (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426778)

expulhsion of IPF for suucessful

Structurally sound? (3, Insightful)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426828)

I'm looking at this photo of one of the rooms [gawkerassets.com] . Is having a glass room suspended from the ceiling really such a good idea for a bunker designed to withstand blasts? It seems like a very bad idea to make a structurally sound bunker with that kind of room. Unless you want your manager to be the first one to die in his office

Re:Structurally sound? (1)

UninformedCoward (1738488) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428042)

I would think that everyone who works under him would be killed first.

Must be kind of depressive... (5, Funny)

pEBDr (1363199) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426950)

... to work there. Just imagine growing up programming in your parents basement, and when you finally get a real job, it's in a cave.

Did they opt for the Evil Lair (TM) ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427064)

... with, or without, the obvious self-destruct button?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Been there (2, Informative)

BetterThanCaesar (625636) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427300)

I've been down there on a tour once. It's quite a cool place as you can see from the pictures, with its humidifiers, plants, lighting and floating island landscape. Although as others have pointed out, none of this protects against any real threat.

More convenient (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427418)

Looks like a great place for Assange to stash the women. Be a lot harder for them to run to the police.

Ego? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427484)

Looks to me like it's being done more for show, and perhaps ego, than for any practical reason. I certainly don't see it being any cheaper than just having the servers in some office building somewhere.

Mobility Is Better (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427938)

I fear for the safety of those at WikiLeaks as well as their gear and data. The best security might be to have quite a bit of their data and personnel in a highly mobile, very covert, posture. Various governments can not be trusted and murder is not an unknown event.

Man with handheld... (1)

ProgramErgoSum (1342017) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427970)

... as seen in the first photo in the link, does it imply, there is cellphone reception at that depth ? hmm ...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?