Slashdot Mirror


NSA Utah Data Center Blueprints Reveal It Holds Less Than Thought

cold fjord writes "Break out the tin foil hats, and make them double thick. Forbes reports, 'The NSA will soon cut the ribbon on a facility in Utah ... the center will be up and running by the "end of the fiscal year," ....Brewster Kahle is the engineering genius behind the Internet Archive,... Kahle estimates that a space of that size could hold 10,000 racks of servers .... "So we are talking $1 billion in machines." Kahle estimates each rack would be capable of storing 1.2 petabytes of data. ... all the phone calls made in the U.S. in a year would take up about 272 petabytes, ... If Kahle's estimations and assumptions are correct, the facility could hold up to 12,000 petabytes, or 12 exabytes – ... but is not of the scale previously reported. Previous estimates would allow the data center to easily hold hypothetical 24-hour video and audio recordings of every person in the United States for a full year. The data center's capacity as calculated by Kahle would only allow the NSA to create archives for the 13 million people living in the Los Angeles metro area. Even that reduced number struck Internet infrastructure expert Paul Vixie as high given the space allocated for data in the facility. ... he came up with an estimate of less than 3 exabytes of data capacity for the facility. That would only allow for 24-hour recordings of what every one of Philadelphia's 1.5 million residents was up to for a year. Still, he says that's a lot of data pointing to a 2009 article about Google planning multiple data centers for a single exabyte of info. '" Update: 07/25 16:33 GMT by T : For even more, see this story.

30 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Saving face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Expect more articles like this that downplay the scale of the NSA.

    1. Re:Saving face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This was submitted by cold fjord, Slashdot's resident neo-con who supports waterboarding, said the Iraq war was "worth it", and said Bradley Manning deserved to be tortured for 'faking' feeling suicidal. What do you expect?

      Oh, and this facility will "only allow for 24-hour recordings of what every one of Philadelphia's 1.5 million residents was up to for a year". It is convenient that the article fails to mention that this is only one facility out of a dozen or so.

    2. Re:Saving face by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      This was submitted by cold fjord, Slashdot's resident neo-con who supports waterboarding, said the Iraq war was "worth it", and said Bradley Manning deserved to be tortured for 'faking' feeling suicidal.

      Oh please! It's nothing that elaborate. All indications are that he has been hired to write this stuff, which really smells of professional marketing. He's damn near a 'bot.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Saving face by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Hell, I already friended him. I think he's funny.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Saving face by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      Nah, if he was in disinfo he'd be posting as cold fnord, so no one would notice him.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Saving face by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      "world wide responsibilities" where mapped out and taken care of during the cold war. The USA has bases, camps, forts, agreements as needed around all the nations it wishes to 'contain'.
      Any global gaps in "signal intelligence" where fixed long ago.
      The "domestic data" aspect is new and seems to need a new location, a new vetted domestic workforce, lots of cooling water and power supply.
      The USA dislikes huge raw encrypted movements around the world.
      The USA likes to get the data in bulk, work on it near the first safe downlink and send a tiny fraction of well encrypted data all the way back to the USA.
      Moving raw bulk "signal intelligence" back to the USA in a few steps is a total waste of effort due to great regional support thats been in place for years.
      Why the raw "signal intelligence" effort in the USA? There are less international links to worry about this time. The "signal intelligence" is going to be local.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Saving face by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Expect more articles like this that downplay the scale..."

      Downplay the scale? We haven't even seen the drawings for the below-ground facilities.

      But, seriously. From the article...

      "...and that the sheer size of the data centers in Utah and elsewhere suggests that the agency wants to vacuum up everything it can..."

      That's my emphasis--plural. There are more then one of these centers. Take a look at the layout of the Utah Data Center article at Wikipedia.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

      Does that building layout look anything like the one at the top of the linked Forbes article? The picture of the buildings and the layout right above are a match in the Wikipedia article, yet they don't match the plans in the Forbes article.

      So where is this data center that Forbes has the plans to? They're obviously not the same.

    7. Re:Saving face by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      I challenge you to delve into my comment history, go on do it. You will find significant periods in my comment history where I am *substantially* more active than the examples you give for Cold Fjord.

      Am I a paid forum-manipulator? I wish. It's trivially easy to post a lot of comments even when doing a full days work for an employer.

    8. Re:Saving face by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, I dunno if you're a spy or anything... not like it really matters, but dudes right. You're spending ALL day EVERY day spewing pro-NSA propaganda. I doubt you're actually a professional at this otherwise you'd have other posts to diffuse your agenda. Instead I think you're just a pro-government ass-hat that works 3rd shift and has little to do all night. Just keep in mind, your ability to post anonymously like this will someday be gone, and you can think back to how you helped make that happen.

      The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

      - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

    9. Re:Saving face by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3

      You're spending ALL day EVERY day spewing pro-NSA propaganda.

      Lets not forget the slow and steady downmodding over hours/days/weeks of any well reasoned posts/facts that tear down Cold Fjords frequently used straw-man arguments. What really worries me is how often he gets his stories posted on Slashdot - WTF is with that!?

      Best bet is to just use the flag post report on his more dubious posts (there are plenty to go around).

    10. Re:Saving face by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      Yep.

      And why do we keep assuming that the NSA is wasting the time recording hours upon hours of audio, and that's how much storage is required?

      Google has records of every phone call made through their system, undoubtedly. They have transcripts of all voicemails. They don't (necessarily) record all calls. Why wouldn't the NSA bother doing the same thing? This is relatively trivial today.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  2. Why the geographical comparisons? by maynard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a vast amount of storage. Obviously, the puzzle they've bought a data palace of a storage facility to assemble doesn't require indefinite storage for everyone. They're looking to cache everything they can get and then filter what's interesting. Maybe they have a range of target levels from indefinite storage of everything collected for one group, a year for another group, a month for a third group, a week for another, all the way down to a day or hours for the entire slush.

    They don't need it all. They just need to run whatever algorithms they care about so they can toss whatever they think doesn't matter and keep what does.

    1. Re:Why the geographical comparisons? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The next step for the NSA is a small file for every human with enough space for a days internet links, chats, text for life.
      That can bed expanded as they get politically active :)
      The file per person would allow any persons digital life to be tracked back to the first 'connection' of interest.
      In the past all that could be done was to track telephone numbers, fax, computer use and voice prints as found or via contact with a past person or group of interest.
      The past sorting was very quick and left a very small amount of data to be sent to the US from any distant super computing location (UK, Australia)
      ie the NSA is not after http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/24/gchq-tempora-101 long term.
      They don't want 'big' content long term, they need space for all your ip's used, ports, apps used keywords, links, times, locations, connections to people - all very tiny amounts of text like info for now ie the "initial filter" will go for your pic, movie, sound, text - not keeping it, but might give a facial recognition code string to everybody in the pic. You only need a good voice print every so often...
      Data size has never been the issue, legality, domestic commercial 'help' have been.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  3. Ummmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do know they lie for a living, right?

    1. Re:Ummmm.... by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 4, Funny

      You do know they lie for a living, right?

      When did the NSA ever say they lied to the public?

      You conspiracy theorist left wing radical communist marxist muslim fundamentalist terrorist!

  4. Re:Big disappointment by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Informative

    After looking through the blueprints I couldn't find anywhere designated for a Stargate. Bummer.

    On the bright side, that is one more rumor that can be laid to rest.

    tsk tsk everyone knows the stargate is under Cheyenne Mountain, it probably a storage facility for pilfered alien tech

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  5. How many hard drives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never mind that the annual production of hard drives is about 100 million drives. If they were all on the order of 5 TB, 10 EB would represent 2% of the global hard drive market for a year. Annual tape production is actually very similar order of magnitude to the annual hard drive production, so it is not like tapes gain you much. At least this is more reasonable than the estimates that previously were in the zetabyte range that would have to assume they had ten years worth of hard drive and/or tape production at current storage density.

  6. Why 24/7? by webdog314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, sure, you could record a few million people sleeping for eight hours a day, or watching 4 hours of Simpsons reruns a night, but why? If you're recording the 1-2 hours most people spend on the phone a day (max), then 3 exabytes might actually work out okay.

    1. Re:Why 24/7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      General Cole is quoted as saying (I paraphrase slightly), "To find a needle in a haystack, it takes a very large haystack." And a very big computer, I might add. And that single needle will be next to impossible to understand, drowned out by the noise around it generated by all the surrounding similarly shaped needles that aren't quite as shiny, that *don't* stand out.

      The more frightening the headlines about the size in exabites of aggregate data in a data center, the more secure we should feel. Peterson's Law states: the capacity to collect, house, and analyze more and more data will be matched by less and less understanding of, insight into, and usefulness of the data. In other words, the ROI (return-on-investment) is less and less. The problem is twofold: a. anyone who hasn't tried her hand at analyzing a large collection of data thinks that the set must tell us everything we need to know, and b. we do get glimpses of stuff we didn't know before -- or think we didn't know before and couldn't get without the terabytes of data we collected.

  7. Re:Big disappointment by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    What "rumor" cold?
    Why would any spy agency hold "24-hour video and audio recordings" on every person?
    You get a file, work, school, crime, links, where seen on the 'net', hops to other people of interest, past clearances, links to any one with a clearances.
    Political insights, weaknesses, funding....
    No service would store video and audio recordings as they have computer code to do that long term vs huge per frame/endless audio.
    Another trick is to turn the 'voice' into text. So the data per person needed for the "size" of people of interest in the USA is usable as reported.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core showed what could be done in the early 1980's is the NSA is hoping to keep a bit more that the "essence" this time.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. Re:One billion by Nyder · · Score: 2

    A billion dollars they're spending. The NIH, the people who fund research that is going to cure cancer, they had their funding cut about 1.5 billion.

    Hey, NSA! I'm thinking highly unpatriotic, violent thoughts right now!

    Well obviously Terrorist kill more then cancer.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  9. Re:Big disappointment by skribe · · Score: 4, Funny

    tsk tsk everyone knows the stargate is under Cheyenne Mountain, it probably a storage facility for pilfered alien tech

    They had to move the Stargate during the Borg invasion, just before the Death Star showed up.

    --
    Blog
  10. Re:Big disappointment by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which, oddly enough, is located in British Columbia. They picked the site because the surrounding countryside coincidentally resembles every habitable planet in the galaxy.

  11. Re:overload them by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    Time to get everyone to post huge files of garbage. Let them store that.

    I thought that's what we've been doing...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. You're obfuscating the issue by Camael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US is the easy case. Until you find a way to get China, North Korea, Iran, (oppressive regime X), et al. to give them up, and various terrorist groups to stop attacking*, you're going to be stuck with it.

    I hope you are seriously not making the argument that the US must do it because regimes like China, North Korea and Iran are doing it. There are a lot of things that China, North Korea and Iran do that the US would do well not to emulate , starting with opressing their own citizens.

    the free democratic nations need intelligence agencies that are capable of helping to protect their societies.

    Nobody disagrees with that broad principle. Whether the intelligence agencies need to have the power to indiscriminately harvest untargeted information on everyone to be capable at their job however, is in issue. If you want to take it to extremes, you could also make the argument that the NSA should be given the powers once held by Stasi, KGB, and their Chinese equivalents to be truly capable. It is true that this would increase the effectiveness of the NSA but I dont think anyone really wants to go there.

    Unilateral disarmament in the face of aggression tends to have significant negative consequences.

    Strawman argument. No one is suggesting that the US, or the NSA "unilaterally disarm" against China, North Korea, Iran et. al. The whole reason why PRISM blew up was because the NSA was collecting data not on China, North Korea or Iran, but on their own citizens and innocent third parties . That is only insofar as PRISM is concerned, we have no idea what other information may be collected by other programs because the NSA won't tell us.

    That would be the equivalent of using your arms on your own family and innocent outsiders in the face of aggression.

  13. It's not a conspiracy, it's a boondoggle. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    "NSA Utah" is an anagam for "anus hat".

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  14. 272 Petabytes is dead on... by nbritton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The claim that a years worth of phone calls is around 272 petabytes is dead on, it matches up perfectly with some back of the napkin calculations I did a while back based on a published report from the FCC[1]. Depending on the encoding bitrate, the range I had was 107 PB for 8 Kbps audio to 430 PB for 32 Kbps audio. 272 PB is about 20 Kbps, exactly in the middle...

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3871487&cid=44027425

    [1]: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf

    The report only documents up to year 2000, but I presumed POTS service had leveled out with the emergence of VOIP and SMS messaging.

  15. Depends.. by buss_error · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On what is kept. If it really is just the metadata and not the conversation, then the storage requirements are not all that large.

    For Landlines, there is a unique identifier applied at the switch. I mis-remember what it's called, but in South Texas, it usually started with BAPA- blah blah blah for several digits.

    For cell phones, there is the OMEI/UDID/ESN. Normally around 14 to 20 digits, usually 15.
    Next, called number, same info.
    Last, call duration.

    I believe it's long been known that using particular words in a telephone conversation would raise a flag. I don't know if that's true or not. If so, lets consider this scenario:

    Call metadata captured and stored - always.
    Call voice session saved to a temporary storage area.
    Call concludes.
    Voice data is analyzed for key words using automation. (Think about when you call your credit card company, and can input your CC number by voice)
    If no keyword flags are raised, delete the conversation after X time (or immediately, who knows?)
    If keyword flag is raised, score by number of keywords, flag conversation for human review, preserve all data.
    After human review, who knows?

    What I think: If preserving our freedom comes at the price of invading all of our privacy, then the terrorists have been gifted with a victory they could have never won for themselves. We have destroyed our freedom with the illusion of security, and now have neither freedom nor security. To draw a parallel, how is having the TSA able to squeeze my balls protecting me? "Dude - don't touch my junk!"

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  16. Re:Big disappointment by Anachragnome · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Or just some Area to keep the stuff in, they'd have to have at least 50 of them by now..."

    Let's not forget the 72 "Fusion Centers" located throughout the country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center

    From that article:

    "MIAC report

    Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) made news in 2009 for targeting supporters of third party candidates, Ron Paul supporters, pro-life activists, and conspiracy theorists (Hi, Mom!) as potential militia members.[14] Anti-war activists and Islamic lobby groups were targeted in Texas, drawing criticism from the ACLU.[15]

    According to the Department of Homeland Security:[16]

            [T]he Privacy Office has identified a number of risks to privacy presented by the fusion center program:

                    Justification for fusion centers
                    Ambiguous Lines of Authority, Rules, and Oversight
                    Participation of the Military and the Private Sector
                    Data Mining
                    Excessive Secrecy
                    Inaccurate or Incomplete Information
                    Mission Creep"

    Ironically, this is a report from the Dept. of Homeland Security about the risks of such centers. And yet, nobody has even mentioned how many overseas facilities we're paying for on top of all the domestic ones.

  17. Talk about Misdirection by Bucc5062 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read through many of the posts, the exchange between "cold fjord" and Aca something was cute with its little drama about paid writers (maybe their both paid writers for the NSA or other government agency). yet in all these posts, not one poster talked about the root of this article. Why would the NSA *need* all this space if is not suppose to be collecting information without specific warrants or in bulk against innocent citizens.

    That is the story. It is like y'all have just rolled over and accepted that it is okay for the NSA to even do this, so let's argue about size. My own view is that the NSA does *not* need these data centers for they should not be collecting that much information about everyone in the USA and beyond. I listened to a politician this morning (one who voted to continue funding the NSA's current trawling expedition) tell me that their actions "saved" hundreds of American lives, but if I asked for proof he'd say "I cannot disclose that information". I see, so you can't provide facts on what the program has done to save lives, you can't talk about what the program does though we know it gathers information on people who are not related to any illegal activity, and you ask us to "Trust You"? This is a republican who cries out for spending cuts, but votes to continue funding secret projects.

    Please...

    The spotlight on the NSA is not what it is building, it is on what it is doing, allegedly breaking the law. We should be asking more questions about that, digging into that, pushing Congress to act on that; not on blueprints. That they want to listen in or gather information on bad guys, fine, but when they expand that same action to include everyone then I have a problem.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter