6 ms·

If every state stood up and passed bills like this the NSA couldnt have giant data centers in this country.

jsmthrowaway 12y ago
As shocking as it might be, the NSA has other things to do which actually are crucial for national security. Reforming the agency will go much further than basically saying "you can't have cool servers or toilets that flush." I know hating the NSA is en vogue but seriously. This is almost as bad as stonewalling and other hostilities toward other branches of government simply because the opposite party is in power (that goes both ways, before you think I'm attacking the right). The NSA committed grievous sin. I'm as upset about it as you. Even so, it baffles me that we would be having this conversation about water. God, stuff like this just depresses me. And that you love it, too. That depresses me as well. It's a cheap "rah rah go Utah sticking it to the man" puppet show that is ultimately meaningless, but you and many like you just eat it up. -- Edit: Between this stupid "you're submitting too fast" barrier that I've never seen until recently on a >year account, downvoting being blessed as okay to represent disagreement, graying comments as a result which silences disagreement and causes a dogpile effect, arbitrary shadowbans in 2014, and my critique of this political theater being interpreted as defense of the NSA or an advertisement that I need the condescension of having an intelligence agency explained to me (better: I'm not going to answer your question but anybody that passed US History knows the answer), HN has done a pretty good job of silencing opposing thought. I asked a question and it's barely legible. Even now, watching people Cmd+F my username and downvote every hit between refreshes. You sure showed me for not thinking like you! Since I disagree with many things HN holds dear, and since the people and technology have made clear that's not welcome, after six years of contributing to Hacker News on various accounts, I'm done. I can't take the technology nor the people any more. It amazes me how hostile HN is now, both socially and technically, and yet people remain. The crowning irony is that people here complain about becoming Reddit, yet on some of the very lesser-known subreddits I've had literally life-changing conversations. Here it's just bickering to see who is more right. Nothing of value comes of this thread, or the hundreds before it. Nothing. I want a refund of my time wasted here.
- thizzbuzz 12y ago
  I am not convinced that the NSA has any purpose. What do you think is necessary about the NSA?
  - buttcoinslol 12y ago
    Collecting and analyzing information for foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence. This seems like a fairly necessary organ of state for the country with the largest military in the world.
    - ende 12y ago
      But that's what the CIA does. Which one is redundant then?
  - optimusclimb 12y ago
    Possibly one of the most naive comments I've ever seen on here. We keep a military at the most basic level - so that another country can't send a boat full of troops over here, or airplanes filled with troops - invade us - and take over. In other words, basic protection against normal acts of war. Imagine if you, thizzbuzz, suddenly awoke tomorrow and found out the dictator of some small European country died, and you were the heir apparent. What would you want to have to make sure that Russia didn't just come in the next day with tanks and declare your country was now theirs? Oh - that would be a military. So great, you've made sure you have that. Now at the very least, if some other country violates your sovereignty, you can at least put up a fight, and it will be a visible spectacle to the rest of the world, which might come in and try and help you. Next up - Inhabitants of your country speak one language. The rest of the world speaks other languages. If a newspaper in a neighboring country starts publishing articles calling for an invasion of your country, in a language most of your inhabitants don't speak...isn't that something you'd like to be aware of? Who do you expect to be responsible for keeping tabs on that? Are you just going to hope that one of your citizens keeps tabs on it for you and drops you an email (at dictator@smalleurocountry.eu) to let you know you might want to be on the lookout for an invasion? Or would your citizens prefer your government is a little proactive about this? (assuming you're a benevolent dictator that wants to keep his country.) Sounds to me like you want some sort of government agency that keeps tabs on such things - you know, for NATIONAL SECURITY. What you DON'T want, if you have an American mindset, is for that agency to be spying on all of its native citizens. That doesn't mean you don't want such an agency to exist.
lsiebert 12y ago
There is a fair bit of land controlled by the United States that is not part of any state. Us Territories like puerto rico, guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas treated as Territories like the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, The District of Columbia, and Federal Enclaves and certain maritime territories and territorial waters would all be available even if every state said no. Plus it's relatively easy to cancel a contract 7 years ahead of time, then renew it before that time comes up.
vladtaltos 12y ago
that's a pretty naive viewpoint. they could've just as easily built the facility on a military base... then what ? trying to prevent espionage through limiting access to resources is a very ineffective way... another point is that the law won't seem to have any effect (even if it passes by the way - no guarantees on that) on the current installation until 2021... 7 years is a pretty long term to revert a bill or make new legislation that allows other options... afaik (I'm not a us citizen) federal law supersedes state law in the US. So it follows that you need to have federal safeguards against wiretapping and whatnot... state legislation is cute at best but seems ineffective.
- ninkendo 12y ago
  > afaik (I'm not a us citizen) federal law supersedes state law in the US. So it follows that you need to have federal safeguards against wiretapping and whatnot... state legislation is cute at best but seems ineffective. States can draft laws that contradict federal laws (or disallow federal practices), leading to court cases where the state defends the constitutionality of their law, and the feds defend the constitutionality of the federal law (or practice.) This is one of the faster ways a law can make its way to the supreme court (see the ACA implementation in half the states, before it came before SCOTUS and it was ruled constitutional.) It'd be interesting to see this law take effect, have the feds sue, and watch the states defend their decision in the supreme court, in which case we'd get to see a ruling on the constitutionality of the wiretapping (if the justices were willing to hear/rule on it.)
anigbrowl 12y ago
How is it that people are willing to believe the NSA/Federal government intercepts and archives the vast bulk of the world's electronics communication, but lacks the capability to sink a well and pull water out of the ground? Evn in the bizarre situation that this were true, the NSA could still have giant data centers in this country by the simple expedient of building them on ships. Sorry, but the comment above is pure magical thinking. I can't take your ideas about policy seriously if you are not connected to practical reality.
- Luc 12y ago
  If you're coming up with creative ideas to avoid this particular legislation, it's only fair to also allow for creative counter-measures.
- dingaling 12y ago
  > but lacks the capability to sink a well and pull water out of the ground? But they also have to dispose of the heated water. An ordinance preventing that would cause complications. And if electricity supplies are withheld, they then have to spend more money installing generator plant and ( vetted ) personnel to operate that. > the NSA could still have giant data centers in this country by the simple expedient of building them on ships. Ships require victuals, fuel and connectivity. Ships are subject to inspection by maritime authorities, unless stationed in international waters - which an intelligence agency would never risk. ~~ All of this would require a request for expansion of the budget, or alternatively eat into the operational aspects of the current budget. In the absence of any high-level political will to address the underlying issue, making routine operations difficult and expensive would seem to be the only practical approach.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    As you mentioned, the discharge of heated water would be regulated by the EPA, depending on the body of water they attempted to discharge it in (similar to how its regulated for coal and nuclear plants that use water for cooling).
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago

As shocking as it might be, the NSA has other things to do which actually are crucial for national security. Reforming the agency will go much further than basically saying "you can't have cool servers or toilets that flush." I know hating the NSA is en vogue but seriously. This is almost as bad as stonewalling and other hostilities toward other branches of government simply because the opposite party is in power (that goes both ways, before you think I'm attacking the right). The NSA committed grievous sin. I'm as upset about it as you. Even so, it baffles me that we would be having this conversation about water. God, stuff like this just depresses me. And that you love it, too. That depresses me as well. It's a cheap "rah rah go Utah sticking it to the man" puppet show that is ultimately meaningless, but you and many like you just eat it up. -- Edit: Between this stupid "you're submitting too fast" barrier that I've never seen until recently on a >year account, downvoting being blessed as okay to represent disagreement, graying comments as a result which silences disagreement and causes a dogpile effect, arbitrary shadowbans in 2014, and my critique of this political theater being interpreted as defense of the NSA or an advertisement that I need the condescension of having an intelligence agency explained to me (better: I'm not going to answer your question but anybody that passed US History knows the answer), HN has done a pretty good job of silencing opposing thought. I asked a question and it's barely legible. Even now, watching people Cmd+F my username and downvote every hit between refreshes. You sure showed me for not thinking like you! Since I disagree with many things HN holds dear, and since the people and technology have made clear that's not welcome, after six years of contributing to Hacker News on various accounts, I'm done. I can't take the technology nor the people any more. It amazes me how hostile HN is now, both socially and technically, and yet people remain. The crowning irony is that people here complain about becoming Reddit, yet on some of the very lesser-known subreddits I've had literally life-changing conversations. Here it's just bickering to see who is more right. Nothing of value comes of this thread, or the hundreds before it. Nothing. I want a refund of my time wasted here.

thizzbuzz 12y ago
I am not convinced that the NSA has any purpose. What do you think is necessary about the NSA?
- buttcoinslol 12y ago
  Collecting and analyzing information for foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence. This seems like a fairly necessary organ of state for the country with the largest military in the world.
  - ende 12y ago
    But that's what the CIA does. Which one is redundant then?
- optimusclimb 12y ago
  Possibly one of the most naive comments I've ever seen on here. We keep a military at the most basic level - so that another country can't send a boat full of troops over here, or airplanes filled with troops - invade us - and take over. In other words, basic protection against normal acts of war. Imagine if you, thizzbuzz, suddenly awoke tomorrow and found out the dictator of some small European country died, and you were the heir apparent. What would you want to have to make sure that Russia didn't just come in the next day with tanks and declare your country was now theirs? Oh - that would be a military. So great, you've made sure you have that. Now at the very least, if some other country violates your sovereignty, you can at least put up a fight, and it will be a visible spectacle to the rest of the world, which might come in and try and help you. Next up - Inhabitants of your country speak one language. The rest of the world speaks other languages. If a newspaper in a neighboring country starts publishing articles calling for an invasion of your country, in a language most of your inhabitants don't speak...isn't that something you'd like to be aware of? Who do you expect to be responsible for keeping tabs on that? Are you just going to hope that one of your citizens keeps tabs on it for you and drops you an email (at dictator@smalleurocountry.eu) to let you know you might want to be on the lookout for an invasion? Or would your citizens prefer your government is a little proactive about this? (assuming you're a benevolent dictator that wants to keep his country.) Sounds to me like you want some sort of government agency that keeps tabs on such things - you know, for NATIONAL SECURITY. What you DON'T want, if you have an American mindset, is for that agency to be spying on all of its native citizens. That doesn't mean you don't want such an agency to exist.

lsiebert 12y ago

There is a fair bit of land controlled by the United States that is not part of any state. Us Territories like puerto rico, guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas treated as Territories like the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, The District of Columbia, and Federal Enclaves and certain maritime territories and territorial waters would all be available even if every state said no. Plus it's relatively easy to cancel a contract 7 years ahead of time, then renew it before that time comes up.

vladtaltos 12y ago

that's a pretty naive viewpoint. they could've just as easily built the facility on a military base... then what ? trying to prevent espionage through limiting access to resources is a very ineffective way... another point is that the law won't seem to have any effect (even if it passes by the way - no guarantees on that) on the current installation until 2021... 7 years is a pretty long term to revert a bill or make new legislation that allows other options... afaik (I'm not a us citizen) federal law supersedes state law in the US. So it follows that you need to have federal safeguards against wiretapping and whatnot... state legislation is cute at best but seems ineffective.

ninkendo 12y ago
> afaik (I'm not a us citizen) federal law supersedes state law in the US. So it follows that you need to have federal safeguards against wiretapping and whatnot... state legislation is cute at best but seems ineffective. States can draft laws that contradict federal laws (or disallow federal practices), leading to court cases where the state defends the constitutionality of their law, and the feds defend the constitutionality of the federal law (or practice.) This is one of the faster ways a law can make its way to the supreme court (see the ACA implementation in half the states, before it came before SCOTUS and it was ruled constitutional.) It'd be interesting to see this law take effect, have the feds sue, and watch the states defend their decision in the supreme court, in which case we'd get to see a ruling on the constitutionality of the wiretapping (if the justices were willing to hear/rule on it.)

anigbrowl 12y ago

How is it that people are willing to believe the NSA/Federal government intercepts and archives the vast bulk of the world's electronics communication, but lacks the capability to sink a well and pull water out of the ground? Evn in the bizarre situation that this were true, the NSA could still have giant data centers in this country by the simple expedient of building them on ships. Sorry, but the comment above is pure magical thinking. I can't take your ideas about policy seriously if you are not connected to practical reality.

Luc 12y ago
If you're coming up with creative ideas to avoid this particular legislation, it's only fair to also allow for creative counter-measures.
dingaling 12y ago
> but lacks the capability to sink a well and pull water out of the ground? But they also have to dispose of the heated water. An ordinance preventing that would cause complications. And if electricity supplies are withheld, they then have to spend more money installing generator plant and ( vetted ) personnel to operate that. > the NSA could still have giant data centers in this country by the simple expedient of building them on ships. Ships require victuals, fuel and connectivity. Ships are subject to inspection by maritime authorities, unless stationed in international waters - which an intelligence agency would never risk. ~~ All of this would require a request for expansion of the budget, or alternatively eat into the operational aspects of the current budget. In the absence of any high-level political will to address the underlying issue, making routine operations difficult and expensive would seem to be the only practical approach.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  As you mentioned, the discharge of heated water would be regulated by the EPA, depending on the body of water they attempted to discharge it in (similar to how its regulated for coal and nuclear plants that use water for cooling).
AnimalMuppet 12y ago