I also think freenet would be best for this kind of project. You can
probably find some people to help you set up a freesite on the freenet
frost boards. For publishing banned files, the obvious choice is
freenet due to its security and the fact that it was designed to do it.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/15/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">WikiLeaks dot Org</b> <<a href="mailto:wikileaks@wikileaks.org">wikileaks@wikileaks.org
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">We use something similar to freenet for the file store. Tor is only<br>
one actor in the play. We've put a lot of thought into it how to make<br>it scalable and accessible and secure.<br><br>On 11/15/06, Watson Ladd <<a href="mailto:watsonbladd@gmail.com">watsonbladd@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<br>> WikiLeaks dot Org wrote:<br>> > We seek volunteers to run tor gateway software on stable IPs with good<br>> > connectivity.<br>> ><br>> > The political and legal risks are probably small compared to that of a
<br>> > full exit server. The bandwidth<br>> > requirements are smaller too, but we ask that all nodes have at least<br>> > 1mbps up/down to aid responsiveness.<br>> ><br>> > WikiLeaks.org is a wikimedia project for the large scale dispersal of
<br>> > leaked documents.<br>> ><br>> > Thanks,<br>> > Lucky<br>> ><br>> > ---<br>> > FF6B 1C07 CB9A E501 F579 2020 E50E 8F25 1101 5F80<br>> ><br>> Considering that you want to publish leaked documents, I would suspect
<br>> that Freenet would be a better choice then a Tor hidden service.<br>> Sincerely,<br>><br>> Watson Ladd<br>><br>> --<br>> They who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary<br>
> Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety<br>> --Benjamin Franklin<br>><br>><br>><br></blockquote></div><br>