
Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash - llambda
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/24/wikleaks-is-running-out-of-cash/
======
skrebbel
I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived)
hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point.

I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know
that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to
send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan,
clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westboro Baptist Church, whatever you
can come up with, and they probably have a bank account), but not to
Wikileaks.

I can't imagine how Wikileaks can be considered a so much more evil
organisation than Stormfront
(<http://www.stormfront.org/forum/announcement.php?a=63>, all cards accepted)
that the first needs to be blocked and the latter does not.

It can _only_ be that at least this part of what Wikileaks is saying is true:
Major banks and businesses, a scarily small number of organisations that
control a large part of the world's financial transactions, want to _control
to who you give your money_. This means that they want to control _who gets
money and what they do with it_. This shit is NONE of their business, and the
fact that they can do this without serious legal issues scares the shit out of
me.

I like to believe that western governments are out to serve their citizens and
protect their freedoms, but I cannot explain how that fits with what these
banks are doing and how the governments just let it happen. This has
absolutely nothing to do with the nature of Wikileaks as an organisation.

Really, this fact alone makes me want to send money in an envelope to
Wikileaks, despite how ridiculous I thought Cablegate was.

Edit: If Wikileaks were a terrorist organisation (blowing up buildings and
people and whatnot), I'd understand governments to force a ban. Not banks
banning them on their own initiatives, but governments forcing it. If you
genuinely feel that Wikileaks is as bad as Al Qaeda and Hamas and the alikes,
then I'll understand if you disagree with me, although even then I hope you
agree that it should've been a government decree, and not banks solo-piloting
their sense of morality. In all other cases, really, I can't wrap my mind
around it.

~~~
steve19
I am just explaining the reasoning. Don't hate/downvote me for saying it ...

Silencing people's political opinions (even horrible evil people) is
considered bad. This is why donations to these evil organizations is
tolerated.

Wikileaks is being blacklisted not because of their political opinions, but
because these organizations, rightly or wrongly, believe Wikileaks is
threatening security of the nation, causing deaths of informers and
collaborators in the Middle East. And last but not least, Wikileaks seems to
be actively perusing leaks in banks and financial organizations. If you bite
the hand that feeds you ...

~~~
forensic
I thought banks are only concerned with profit. Since when did they start
defending the nation?

~~~
sliverstorm
You can't very well make a healthy profit if the nation in question is burning
down around your ears, now can you?

~~~
esmevane
Unfortunately, you can. There is money in nearly any societal state. The
ruination of a country just presents different opportunities, not necessarily
fewer.

~~~
chimeracoder
> There is money in nearly any societal state.

It'd be better to say that there is potential value (as opposed to 'money',
which is a term with overloaded definitions), but yes - as long as there is
scarcity, opportunities for trade will exist.

------
untog
I'd be interested in Wikileaks providing a rundown on what they spend their
money on.

Every cent might be in the direct pursuit of free information but I worry that
isn't the case.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's certainly ironic that they haven't released such information, considering
their alleged function & goals.

~~~
rimantas
It's not ironic, this was one of the points for me "writing them off".
Wikileaks reponse to inquiry about their financial matters was basicaly "none
of your business" and since then I see them as Assange's personal PR tool,
nothing more, despite the claims.

~~~
sliverstorm
So much for transparency.

~~~
todsul
^ strawman

------
gldalmaso
It impresses me just how much combined effort is being put towards boycoting
transparency, just on the grounds that the powers that be are embaressed by
their ugly operations.

~~~
pconf
Also impresses me by how many posts here believe the media coverage of
Assange. Just goes to show, Americans are the most naive consumers of
commercial news on the planet, by a considerable margin.

All I want to know is where I can send a check.

Long live government transparency.

~~~
Ixiaus
Here's their bitcoin address: 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v

~~~
redthrowaway
The problem with sending money via bitcoin at the moment is that it will
likely be worth significantly less tomorrow than it is today, and less still
the day after.

It would be nice to have a bitcoin alternative that was actually a viable
currency; as of now I know of no such thing.

~~~
Tichy
They just have to exchange them back into dollars today then. Why wait till
tomorrow?

------
robfig
Can someone explain why diplomatic cables should be free and open?

~~~
skeptical
They shouldn't. Everyone seems to be ignoring that, so you get my upvote.

We should be aware that wikileaks actions are indeed crimes. That said, some
cables put it crystal clear, some politicians are really corrupt and are using
their privileged position to their own advantage.

Do the goals justify the means?

~~~
mrleinad
Provided that the goals are:

1) Exposing corrupt politicians. 2) Stop politicians from screwing millions of
people over and over again.

And the downsides are: 1) Some politician loses his/her reputation, and the
people of his/her country know who he/she really is. 2) Some frictions between
countries, for example when an embassador is just a mean for creating a
corporations' lobby.

I'd say yes, the means are well justified in this case. Truth can never be a
bad thing.

~~~
rimantas

      > 1) Exposing corrupt politicians.
    

Were there any cables discussing how big a bribe should one bring?

    
    
      > 2) Stop politicians from screwing millions of people over and
      over again.
    

Common content of the diplomatic cables, for sure. I heard disclosing those
cables let us know who do politicians nickname each other. I guess I can do
without that info.

The thing is — if there is anything worth knowin in those cables it will
become visible through the actions of the officials sooner or later. If it
will not — I don't care.

~~~
libraryatnight
"Employees of DynCorp, a US government contractor funded by US tax dollars, in
Afghanistan paid for the services of underage "dancing boys", apparently a
euphemistic reference to Bacha bazi, which is considered child
prostitution.[22] The boys were auctioned off to be sexually abused by Afghan
policemen, with some to be kept as sex slaves and participate in events funded
by DynCorp"

"The U.S. bargained with other nations on moving prisoners from the Guantanamo
Bay detention camp to other countries. In one case, U.S. officials allegedly
offered Slovenia a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, if the country
accepted one of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.[24][25] Offers to other
countries include economic incentives or a visit from Obama"

"In 2009, the U.S. manipulated — via spying, threats, and bribes — the
Copenhagen global climate change summit to coerce reticent participants into
supporting the treaty. The U.S. punished countries such as Ecuador and
Bolivia, which were deemed "unhelpful" for not signing the Copenhagen Accord,
by cutting off millions of dollars in necessary funds;[27] while, the U.S.
relieved Saudi Arabia, the world's second-biggest oil producer and one of the
twenty-five-richest countries in the world, of any kind of obligation.[28] The
U.S. used funds in millions of dollars to recruit the Maldives to sign the
Copenhagen Accord, after it has relentlessly took a stand against it"

The above is a sliver of things I've personally learned, and am glad I know,
from the leaks. It may not be pleasant or happy information, but I want to
know what the Governments and corporations are doing. You may not care or want
to know, but some of us do care what is happening.

(used wikipedia's listings to find what I was looking for,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_d...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak_\(Region_%E2%80%94_Americas\))
)

------
Gustomaximus
I think it is good they split out: "WikiLeaks and Julian Assange Defence Fund"

As while I think many people want to support Wikileaks, they don't want to
support his personal legal case, be it politically motivated or not.

------
amritsharma
You know we've turned a very dangerous corner when the 'land of the free' is
choking the free flow of information.

<http://www.wikileaks.org/support>

------
ww520
Can Wikileaks simply release the leaks via BitTorrent? Sign the distribution
with a crypto certificate and let BT take care of the distribution.

~~~
chimeracoder
This is what I never understood - aside from the 'insurance' file that they
released ~1 year ago, it seems they haven't really taken advantage of P2P
networks as much as they could. It certainly would cut down on hosting costs,
and it's not like the Wikileaks guys are unaware of encryption/signing.

Anybody know why they haven't gone this route?

------
danso
What is thhe status of WL mirror sites? I remember when WL went down for
financial reasons, hardly any of the mirror sites seemed to function, never
mind have most of the archives

~~~
derrida
Mine is up. The major ones I have checked are still up. Report any noticed
downs in the Wikileaks IRC.

------
antimora
Is anyone getting 404 when clicking on donate link?

<http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate>

------
TylerE
Maybe they'd have fewer problems if they you know, actually released stuff?

~~~
turing
Yup, I'm sure the banking blockade came about because the banks thought
WikiLeaks was releasing too little information.

------
Helianthus
good thing cash is running out of time.

