Wikileaks Servers Move To Underground Nuclear Bunker

Wikileaks Servers Move To Underground Nuclear Bunker

By Andy Greenberg - The Firewall - Forbes - Aug. 30 2010

Internet service providers often tell their clients that they offer “bullet-proof hosting.” Whistle-blower organization Wikileaks, it seems, will settle for nothing less than “bomb-proof.”

Some portion of Wikileaks’ servers have been moved to the “Pionen” White Mountains data center owned by Swedish broadband provider Bahnhof. That data center will store Wikileaks’ data 30 meters below ground inside a Cold-War-era nuclear bunker carved out of a large rock hill in downtown Stockholm.

The server farm has a single entrance and is protected by half-meter thick metal doors–fitting safeguards, perhaps, for an organization that raised the ire of several powerful military forces last month when it released thousands of classified Afghanistan War documents.

Earlier in August the copyright-flouting Swedish Pirate Party began hosting Wikileaks’ IT operations, and it’s not clear exactly why it’s chosen to move Wikileaks’ servers to the Pionen facility. The threat of law enforcement physically seizing the organization’s equipment, after all, is much less likely than a legal attempt to gain direct access to Wikileaks’ data.

blogs.forbes.com...


I thought this place was quite cool, so I'd like to share this with you guys - if someone here is interested in deep underground data centers, that is?

The Swedish political Pirate Party who now has two members in the European Parliament - are now since last week hosting Wikileaks servers in this data center/server farm in Stockholm.

You can of course not compare this with other much larger data centers like Google's etc, but the place is a bit different with nice design at least.

"Here’s a video tour from the IT organization Data Center Pulse filmed in 2008, showing the super-secure facility."

Another video from the same place:

Pionen - Bahnhof's computer facility movie



Hope you liked the place!

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Chevalerous]

this must be the last step of security for there files, because if they're worried their servers are going to be sabotaged or something (which I wouldn't put it past some of these people who don't like wikileaks) then this means that wikileaks isn't going anywhere, not unless their is some sort of serious legal action taken against them. Props to Assange this is just more insurance lol

Ooohhh, interesting!

I suppose it's a natural extension to their needs for protection. The US did say that if Wikileaks would not follow the demands laid out they would use coercion.

Considering that can mean any number of things, including covert operations, I'm glad Wikileaks stepped up security.

If anything happens to the servers it's going to be seriously suspicious. I would imagine that the most valuable documents will also be backed up elsewhere.

This is certainly an interesting and long story to follow.

reply to post by here4awhile & Tarrok



Thanks for posting guys!

Yes this place look to be well protected from sabotage or that someone would break into the place physically I think.

The Swedish authorities would need a warrant to stop Wikileaks which I think is bit more difficult now since a 'Political Party' are hosting their servers.

At least in Sweden with the very free press laws and whistle blower protection, it would be a huge scandal to go after the servers of another political party.

But you never know for sure though, maybe if the pressure for some reason gets too much on the Government, something could perhaps happen to stop the servers - but I think that would be against the constitution and the Laws of a free press in Sweden.

So it would be huge scandal whatever they would do to take down Wikileaks servers anyway.

Quite crazy situation really! lol!

Excuse the conspiracy theorist in me, but...

Don't people feel all these much publicised ''cloak-and-dagger'' stories regarding wikileaks, a bit suspicious ?

It's almost as if they're involved in putting on a show for the public.

Why all the public announcements of holding damaging documents ? Why all the cliffhangers ? Why not just verify the documents, and then, without any fuss, release them ?

I'm not one of those that buys into the theory that they're a CIA front, or anything like that, but something doesn't quite sit right about wikileaks, to me.

It all seems too much.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I share a lot of your concerns.

There's very little concrete information. It's all hints and numbers from Wikileaks.

Having said that, there's still a load of documents they have to go through. I don't think they are a very big organization so it'll take quite a long time to go through the what.... 17,000 documents they still have?

Last time they had the help of 3 News Agencies. With all the heat they are experiencing now, I doubt anyone will want to directly help WL.

I don't know, I feel it's too early to really tell one way or the other.

I give Wikileaks the benefit of the doubt, it seems they are being demonized by the MSM and that's reason enough for me to watch the endgame.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Tarrok]

reply to post by Tarrok


I agree with most of what you say.

I can't absolutely put my finger on why I'm uncomfortable about the whole wikileaks scenario.

I realise they have to check and verify thousands of documents, because if they are genuine, and they released a false document, then the MSM would have an absolute field day !

I just don't see why they can't verify the documents, and then release them, rather than saying ''we have explosive documents, but they won't be released for another 14 days''.

It just sounds worryingly commercial.

I know they may be trying to spread publicity, but it really doesn't sound too good, to me.

And the topic in the OP makes me worried about an almost comical slant to these ''cloak-and-dagger'' stories regarding WL.

Big Deal, they're in a bunker. They are still connected to the internet and subject to attack.

The data can be stored on a thumb drive in Aunt Jenny's underwear drawer which is far safer than a server in a bunker everyone knows about.

This just reeks of self promotion.

Originally posted by hinkyThis just reeks of self promotion.

That is, I think, what's largely troubling me, about this.

It all seems a bit too ''James Bond'' to reveal that you have to go down to this underground bunker, for fear that some nefarious agencies may intercept, and incapacitate, your message or message sending capability.

It sounds too cheesy and commercial, to me.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Or just upload the data to the "cloud". Or seed torrents for P2P. Any of which will keep data out there floating around.

I can understand a secure bunker will ensure the data has a fail-safe backup, but usually such a strategy involves keeping mum about it.

At any rate, Wikileaks is making enemies of more than just the US government, there's a few others out there casting aspersions Wikileaks' way. If you were in their position, you would probably be making a few security enhancements too, wouldn't you? Me, I stack soda cans behind my door, that way I hear them coming...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Excuse the conspiracy theorist in me, but...

Don't people feel all these much publicised ''cloak-and-dagger'' stories regarding wikileaks, a bit suspicious ?

It's almost as if they're involved in putting on a show for the public.

Why all the public announcements of holding damaging documents ? Why all the cliffhangers ? Why not just verify the documents, and then, without any fuss, release them ?

I'm not one of those that buys into the theory that they're a CIA front, or anything like that, but something doesn't quite sit right about wikileaks, to me.

It all seems too much.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Yeah, the guy is definitely a wierd cyber surfer!

I can not yet put my finger on it, but sure - there is something which is kind of suspicious perhaps?

His motives?

Being a Jesus for free information?

A friend of mine told me she had heard that Assange want to build up free-press-centers in Sweden and Iceland where journalists from other countries with much stricter press Laws could publish their material without legal repercussions and out of reach from the solicitors in London.

Apparently today if you print something daring in the press in many countries (even the US & UK) these pesky solicitors who are handling such cases for Corporations and Governments in the whole world - can sue your ass off!

So there could actually be some good money to build up a free-press-centers for publishing in countries who has these rights written into their constitutions as a strong fundamental law of their society- and where these solicitors from London and other Governments can't touch you legally.

Well something similar to this I think it was - this is what my lady friend journalist told me about his motives - she had apparently talked with someone who, for some reason knew a little more about his motives.

Could maybe be near the truth perhaps?

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Yeah, the guy is definitely a wierd cyber surfer!

I can not yet put my finger on it, but sure - there is something which is kind of suspicious perhaps?

His motives?

Being a Jesus for free information?

LOL.

I don't think Assange is a weird cyber-surfer, but then again I'm not sold on the idea that him, and his website, are free information ''saviours''.

Originally posted by Chevalerous
A friend of mine told me she had heard that Assange want to build up free-press-centers in Sweden and Iceland where journalists from other countries with much stricter press Laws could publish their material without legal repercussions and out of reach from the solicitors in London.
Apparently today if you print something daring in the press in many countries (even the US & UK) these pesky solicitors who are handling such cases for Corporations and Governments in the whole world - can sue your ass off!

''Want to'' and ''actually do'', are two completely different concepts.

There are some strict ''gagging orders'' in the UK, in regards to press material, but the information always arrives on the internet within a few hours.

Originally posted by Chevalerous
So there could actually be some good money to build up a free-press-centers for publishing in countries who has these rights written into their constitutions as a strong fundamental law of their society- and where these solicitors from London and other Governments can't touch you legally.

Well something similar to this I think it was - this is what my lady friend journalist told me about his motives - she had apparently talked with someone who, for some reason knew a little more about his motives.

Could maybe be near the truth perhaps?

But how long will these countries have rights to ''free-press'' ?

Does your country have truly ''free-press'' ?

reply to post by Chevalerous


I love the videos in your OP, by the way, giving us a tour of this facility in Sweden.

I like the modern technology and architecture, set against the backdrop of the rocks.

I also like the lass that appears at the Bahnhof facility, from 1.50 onwards in the second video.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Does your country have truly ''free-press'' ?

Well in comparison with the rest of the world, yes!

In 2009, the countries where press was the most free were Finland, Norway, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark.

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, for some reason they forgot Iceland, but Iceland is also in the absolute top

(I think they have by mistake written Ireland instead of Iceland perhaps?)

The world's first Freedom of the Press Act was introduced in Sweden in 1766

en.wikipedia.org...

What is kind of unique though in Sweden is the über strong protection regarding sources and whistleblowers.

A journalist never need under any circumstances to reveal their sources to the authorities - in fact! it is forbidden for the Government to interfere with this according to the Swedish constitution and the old Laws regarding a free press.

Of course! the main stream newspapers sometimes work with the Government if some stuff is very sensitive for the country - but they don't HAVE TO if they don't want to do so!

But sometimes they do this anyway because they are corrupt assholes owners of the main stream trash - but even then they don't need to reveal their sources or whistleblowers - and they mostly never do - and the authorities never asks.

It would be suicide in the press community to reveal your source.

So they just try to hide it and don't print the stuff if the Government begs and it would be too sensitive for example: for national security - it's based more on a gentlemen agreement but not required by any laws nor the constitution for the journalists.

But the truth always surface sooner or later anyway even in those extreme cases, usually by other leaking journalists who won't or want to keep quiet!


[edit on 31-8-2010 by Chevalerous]

lol wut

I guess all the better for them, eh? They seem to be making the profits to be able to afford such an action.

reply to post by Chevalerous

Seems like a very odd move to me, bunkers are great to keep people out but if a government really wanted to shut them down all they would have to do is cut the power, block exhaust vents, and wait.

I'm sure the place has backup generators but I doubt they are really going to keep the massive amounts of fuel on hand to keep them going for any extended period of time. No power means no A/C, which means a nice pile of melted plastic in no time.

I'm sure anyone who has ever worked around a server room of any kind will agree when the power goes for for even 30 minutes a server room is hotter than heck.

This is really just a waste of money and a good way to give the appearance of security at a time when everyone fears they may be silenced.

Originally posted by wl653
Seems like a very odd move to me, bunkers are great to keep people out but if a government really wanted to shut them down all they would have to do is cut the power, block exhaust vents, and wait.

Yeah, but that would never happen in Sweden with the current constitution and free-press Laws & source protection, it would be political suicide for the prime minister who gave such orders.

For that to happen in Sweden they would first need to rewrite the constitution to include this authoritarian and totalitarian intervention against source protection and whistle blower protection.

Can it ever happen?

Most certainly! but that would also mean political suicide against principles that EVERY swede has in the highest regards - on both sides of the aisle/political spectrum.

Sweden is well knowned around the world for its Govermental transparancy, openness & strong independent free-press Laws.

Every public record that is made in the name of the people and the Swedish democracy - is available for EVERYONE in the public and every citizen to see and get access to, by requesting this to which certain Swedish authority you would like to have these records from.

I have even requested public records in the morning by phone - and the next day I have these public records in paper-form in my mailbox at home.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by Tarrok

 

I can't absolutely put my finger on why I'm uncomfortable about the whole wikileaks scenario.

I totally agree, I have the same feeling. It's so obfuscated and murky that it's hard to see what the actual motives and reasons behind all this are.

Maybe there aren't any and it really is all just what Assange is saying, but it really is so 'James Bond' that makes us look closer into the matter.

It's so irregular, is probably the best way to describe it.

I realise they have to check and verify thousands of documents, because if they are genuine, and they released a false document, then the MSM would have an absolute field day !

Yeah they use forensic techniques and all that hardcore shazam to make sure these documents are genuine. Keep in mind they've been doing this for a while now. It's not like Wikileaks appeared just for the Afghan War Diaries, though the MSM would have us believe that.

I just don't see why they can't verify the documents, and then release them, rather than saying ''we have explosive documents, but they won't be released for another 14 days''.

Yeah, I wish they would give us a better idea of what is actually happening. I would be completely content with someone from WL saying: "We've got about 10,000 more documents to go, considering the speed at which we've been going so far I'd say it'll take another X amount of weeks."

Maybe their silence is for their own benefit. Keeping the US Government in the dark to prevent them from forming a timetable of action. That way WL can release documents at a moments notice and everyone will be wide eyed.

It just sounds worryingly commercial. I know they may be trying to spread publicity, but it really doesn't sound too good, to me.

Keep in mind it's in their own interest to create a big media splash for these documents. It makes sense when you look at Assange's wishes to enact change based on the documents that are released. Considering that I've never heard of any change brought up by Wikileaks, despite them publishing a lot of documents in the past, this may well just be a new strategy.

I'm not saying I like it, but if it is for what they claim, then I can respect it.
But again, it's hard to tell for sure which is really annoying so many people that are giving WL the benefit of the doubt.

And the topic in the OP makes me worried about an almost comical slant to these ''cloak-and-dagger'' stories regarding WL.

James Bond vibes always bring that up. The rediculous-ness of it just tickles my funny bone. We just have to realize it's a lot more serious than we might say it is.

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Yeah, but that would never happen in Sweden with the current constitution and free-press Laws & source protection, it would be political suicide for the prime minister who gave such orders.

Exactly. As my post stated, this is just a show of strength at a time when people fear them being shut down. A nuclear bunker is one of the worst places to store servers unless you are actually expecting to be bombed..

One of the main and important security improvement that Wikileaks gets by this move, is described here :

Karlung says Bahnhof has not yet complied with Sweden’s new FRA surveillance law. “We have an unbroken chain of fiber-optic cables that cover 2,300 kilometers,” says Karlung. “We’re positive that [government agencies] haven’t installed any equipment yet. That day will come, and when it does we’ll inform all clients that they’re surveilled by the Swedish government.”

Corp & Spy Agencies are known to plug these type of equipments, directly on the lines, to get their information. Very efficient and nearly undetectable. And most of the Datacenters don't give these garenties ...

But as for every system, nothing is unbreachable.