On April 16, 2021, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies and Gula Tech Foundation launched an open letter urging more private philanthropic support for cybersecurity. CyberScoop reported 30 signatories from across the field, but the available reporting does not establish what happened to the campaign afterward.
What the open letter asked for
The appeal argued that private philanthropy could fill gaps left when public or commercial funding does not reliably reach cybersecurity’s public-interest needs. Its case was broader than protecting individual computers: the letter linked cybersecurity with national security, innovation, economic development, personal privacy and civil liberties.
The letter said: “We believe that private philanthropy is ideally suited to support the development of an emerging field of theorists and practitioners across cybersecurity domains.” It also stated: “Anyone who cares about national security, innovation, economic development, personal privacy, or civil liberties should care about cybersecurity. Private philanthropy is a critical missing piece to meet this urgent need.” CyberScoop quoted those passages, and the Center for Internet Security reproduced them in a media mention.
Who organized and signed it
CyberScoop identified the three foundations as the organizers and reported 30 signatories. The reported participants included trade associations, nonprofits, charitable foundations, think tanks and cybersecurity professionals.
#1 Best Overall
Examples named in that report included Michael Daniel, president of the Cyber Threat Alliance; leaders of the National Sheriffs’ Association; the R Street Institute; and the Identity Theft Resource Center. The retrieved report does not provide a complete signatory list, so the 30-person count should not be treated as a verified roster of every participant.
Why supporters said philanthropy was needed
The organizers’ argument was that cybersecurity is an emerging field requiring sustained investment in people and public-interest capacity, not only short-term technology purchases.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
- Expertise: funding could help develop researchers and practitioners across cybersecurity disciplines.
- Public-interest work: independent organizations may address problems that are not commercially attractive or consistently covered by government budgets.
- Education and workforce development: support could help prepare students and expand the future cyber workforce.
- National protection: philanthropy was presented as one contributor to broader resilience and public safety.
Ron Gula, identified by CyberScoop as a Gula Tech Foundation co-founder, summarized the rationale this way: “When it comes to job growth, the protection of the country, the education of our next generation of people — these are very, very philanthropic types of things.” Kristin Judge, CEO of the Cybercrime Support Network and a signatory, said more foundation and technology philanthropy could support the cyber ecosystem.
Where donations might have gone
The report used examples rather than publishing a definitive grantmaking plan. It pointed to the Center for Internet Security, which hosts the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center and Election ISAC, as an example of information-sharing infrastructure. It also mentioned scholarships for community-college students.
Those examples illustrate two different giving paths: strengthening organizations that provide shared public services, and helping people enter or advance in cybersecurity. They should not be read as an official list of the letter’s funding priorities.
The spending figure—and its limits
CyberScoop reported that the letter cited a Peace and Security Index estimate that only 0.007% of $3.7 billion in grantmaking since 2012 had gone to cybersecurity. That is the letter’s cited estimate, not an independently verified measurement here. The available material does not include the index’s underlying data or methodology, so the figure should be used as historical context rather than a precise current market statistic.
Rank #4
A proposed donor-connection service
CyberScoop discussed cyberphilanthropy.org as a possible way to connect donors with vetted foundations. The report described that service as an idea under discussion; it does not establish that the site or a donor-matching program launched, remained active, or produced results.
What the 2021 announcement does—and does not—show
| Established by the contemporaneous reporting | Not established by the available reporting |
|---|---|
| An open letter was announced on April 16, 2021. | Whether the campaign continued after the announcement. |
| Three foundations organized the effort. | How much money was raised or awarded. |
| CyberScoop reported 30 signatories. | The complete signatory list or a later expansion of it. |
| The letter advocated philanthropic investment in cybersecurity capacity and public-interest work. | Measured effects on cybersecurity outcomes. |
| Cyberphilanthropy.org was discussed as a possible donor-connection idea. | Whether that service ever launched or is currently available. |
If you are evaluating a cybersecurity donation
The announcement itself did not compare active charities or provide a current giving directory. A donor assessing an organization today should verify the details directly and consider:
Recommended Free Tools
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
- Mission fit: whether the organization works on research, education, information sharing, consumer support or another goal you value.
- Evidence of impact: what outputs and outcomes the organization reports, and how clearly it explains them.
- Transparency: accessible financial information, governance details and a clear description of how donations are used.
- Eligibility and availability: whether it currently accepts donations or grants in your jurisdiction and under what terms.
- Independence and public benefit: whether its work serves a broad public or primarily advances a vendor’s commercial interests.
Those checks are practical safeguards for present-day giving; they are not evidence that any organization named in the 2021 report currently offers a particular program.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
