Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Protesters Launch a 135-Foot Blimp Over the NSA's Utah Data Center

Posted by Soulskill on from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

Dega704 sends this news from Wired: Plenty of nightmare surveillance theories surround the million-square-foot NSA facility opened last year in Bluffdale, Utah. Any locals driving by the massive complex Friday morning saw something that may inspire new ones: A massive blimp hovering over the center, with the letters NSA printed on its side.

Activist groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Greenpeace launched the 135-foot thermal airship early Friday morning to protest the agency's mass surveillance programs and to announce the launch of Stand Against Spying, a website that rates members of Congress on their support or opposition to NSA reform. The full message on the blimp reads 'NSA: Illegal Spying Below' along with an arrow pointing downward and the Stand Against Spying URL."

104 comments

  1. The US government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Are in reality a bunch of shameless cowards.

    1. Re:The US government by sabri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are in reality a bunch of shameless cowards.

      I agree, but they're not as shameless as I thought. My first reaction was: they are not going to have a pilot's license much longer. But when I took a look at the aeronautical charts for that area, I was surprised to find out that it's not a prohibited area to fly over.

      In my humble opinion, this means that apparently the Government doesn't think this datacenter is such a big deal, otherwise it would have been a no-fly zone (like the plant a couple of miles to the left of the lake).

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    2. Re:The US government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > In my humble opinion, this means that apparently the Government doesn't think this datacenter is such a big deal, otherwise it would have been a no-fly zone

      Don't attribute to moral convictions what is more easily explained by simple incompetence.

    3. Re:The US government by sugarmatic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Prohibited areas are few and far between, and don't include power plants as you suggest,despite what some obedient naive security person might proclaim to an even more naive reporter.

      The data center is wide open, and this was a peaceful protest. It is not possible from the picture to tell if the flight was conducted at a legal altitude or not. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-V... ==the law enforcement community proved itself to be a bunch of incompetent, fragile personality types.

      People like to believe anything that gives a sense of urgency or authority to what they feel they have to say.

      If the government truly wanted to protect the data center, they wouldn't have placed their chiller stations on the perimeter with no barriers,or their transformer service stations, etc. The place would be disabled for months at a minimum if they were affected. An airplane flying overhead? It would barely mess up the paint. There is no reason to shut down the airspace there.

    4. Re:The US government by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The data center sits right in the flight path for commercial airliners landing at SLC international though because of the distance I doubt the height it was at was an issue.

    5. Re:The US government by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal to be a shameless coward. The massive scale spying on US citizens and foreign allies was what was illegal and what we should be jailing people for.

    6. Re:The US government by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe it's just a disaster recovery site with a few hundred secretarial staff located there, the real show could be elsewhere. We just don't know.

    7. Re:The US government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It couldn't have been built there if it was going to get restricted airspace. It's right under the northbound flight path for aircraft landing at Salt Lake International Airport. Not to mention being right at the junction of two valleys it's the major through way for general aviation flights north and south, forcing new deviations around that site simply is not an option as to the west is a military reservation and to the east the terrain gets tall really quickly.

    8. Re:The US government by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Are in reality a bunch of shameless cowards.

      I agree, but they're not as shameless as I thought. My first reaction was: they are not going to have a pilot's license much longer. But when I took a look at the aeronautical charts for that area, I was surprised to find out that it's not a prohibited area to fly over.

      In my humble opinion, this means that apparently the Government doesn't think this datacenter is such a big deal, otherwise it would have been a no-fly zone (like the plant a couple of miles to the left of the lake).

      Another way to think about it is that:
      1. They want it to remain obscure.
      2. They think that the facility is impenetrable from all directions.

    9. Re:The US government by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I was surprised to find out that it's not a prohibited area to fly over.

      Now watch an emergency meeting in congress to pass a new air restriction over the building

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:The US government by sabri · · Score: 1

      Prohibited areas are few and far between, and don't include power plants as you suggest

      Well, if you would actually take the time to look at the sectional chart, you'd see what I mean. It clearly says "plant" and pilots are requested> not to overfly it at a low altitude.

      The guy who was arrested a couple of years ago should not have let his case get dismissed on the condition that he would not sue the local Buford T. Justice. If it was me, I'd challenge them in court. They had no business talking that glider down or arresting the pilot.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  2. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Fucking Awesome!

    That is all.

    1. Re:Awesome by eis2718bob · · Score: 2

      A fairly complete description of this complex, its occupants, methods, and procedures was already published in 1961:
      Memoirs Found in a Bathtub, by Stanislaw Lem
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
      All hail the Building, set in opposition to the Anti-Building!

    2. Re:Awesome by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You do realize the NSA is monitoring this thread, logging IPs and tracking and...

      And a bunch of better guys it couldn't be, go get those EFF and Greenpeace terrorist lovers. Take the frist psot while you're at it. (Note I didn't use "ur"! Yey America!)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. How effective can the spying be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they are caught off guard by A BLIMP

    1. Re:How effective can the spying be? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "caught off guard?" Are you assuming that if they saw it coming, they'd shoot it down? Or would they maybe pull it over with a police blimp?

    2. Re:How effective can the spying be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why bother stopping it? They possibly slipped in and added spyware and hardware to make use of themselves, including some security cameras for an "eye in the sky" that isn't all the way up to geosynchronous orbit.

    3. Re:How effective can the spying be? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that anyone can just park a largish airborne platform over top of important important government facilities but I still have to get pat down at the airport to fly commercial.

      That just shows to go you how pointless all this security theater really is! I mean fill the cockpit with potassium perchlorate and just let the balloon go once you are over the target.

      It can't really still be that easy can it? Not that we have exactly solved the truck bomb problem, but you can't get an unauthorized vehicle especially close to most sensitive targets anymore.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:How effective can the spying be? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps in an even more sinister vein, that it's not their blimp?

    5. Re:How effective can the spying be? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It can't really still be that easy can it?

      What do you mean? Why not?

      Not that we have exactly solved the truck bomb problem, but you can't get an unauthorized vehicle especially close to most sensitive targets anymore.

      You're not getting close to anything important, no. If you blew up something like that, there would be martial law and all kinds of fun toys to play with, they wouldn't miss those guys. You didn't believe any of that hoohaa about the sanctity of life or whatever, did you? Because I might lol for that, if not rofl.

      Anything actually important can't just be driven right up to trivially. It's not too hard to get on a base and kill some people, we've seen that demonstrated in fact, but you're not going to blow up major military infrastructure, or anything but possibly a redundant data center — at which point, security will be increased around others.

      But yes, yes you can get pretty close to stuff if you want to. And sure, you could bomb a lot of things if you wanted to. All this spying apparatus is supposed to permit us to keep tabs on people we think might do that, and hey... it might even do that, a little. But mostly, almost nobody is actually trying. If they were, it would be stupendously easy to blow up or otherwise wreck a whole bunch of minor infrastructure. What purpose would that serve, except to provide an excuse to shit all over your people, or just anyone standing around looking tempting?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:How effective can the spying be? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      If you have a light aircraft you can pretty much bomb anyplace you want. Areas directly over sensitive facilities are usually prohibited zones, which means that if you penetrate them you may be "pulled over" by a fighter jet and face big trouble after you land. They won't shoot if they can avoid it.

      Trouble is, these zones are usually pretty small compared to the speed of even a small plane. For example, if you have zone with a 10 NM radius and you are flying at 120 kts, it only takes 5 minutes to reach the center. During this time, they have to notice you, dispatch an interceptor airplane, intercept you, send you a few signals, notice that you don't intend to comply and finally shoot you.

    7. Re:How effective can the spying be? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that anyone can just park a largish airborne platform over top of important important government facilities but I still have to get pat down at the airport to fly commercial.

      That just shows to go you how pointless all this security theater really is! I mean fill the cockpit with potassium perchlorate and just let the balloon go once you are over the target.

      It can't really still be that easy can it? Not that we have exactly solved the truck bomb problem, but you can't get an unauthorized vehicle especially close to most sensitive targets anymore.

      If it was that vital and important, why is it a) above ground, b) public knowledge, and c) not policed?

      Government may do stupid things, but they aren't complete idiots. We know it's an NSA facility, but if it was so vital to operations, then why do we know where it is (it certainly wasn't hidden away as some random data center), and who owns it?

      Even the most top secret of facilities often has to deal with boring mundane stuff. Hell, for all you know, it could be managing the timesheets of the NSA and other completely unclassified stuff (e.g., software installs).

      Bomb that and you'd just force a bunch of people to fill in timesheets some other way, to have IT personnel run around with thumbdrives containing Microsoft Office, and inconvenience the secretary typing up revisions to the NSA employee handbook or something.

      OK, fine, maybe you'll disrupt their ability to make a personal phone call or for pizza so they now have to walk out of the secure area to use their cellphone.

  4. Why? by pjh3000 · · Score: 1

    So how exactly does the blimp impede the NSA?

    1. Re:Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      It doesn't, silly, there's No Such Aerostat.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      public opinion and awareness?

    3. Re:Why? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Impeding government operations is illegal. Protesting government operations is legal. Hope that helps.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a very large rallying cry against them. From the OP:

      The full message on the blimp reads: "NSA: Illegal Spying Below' along with an arrow pointing downward and the Stand Against Spying URL.""

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems weird to give them free advertising space like that, using such a beautiful and eye-catching floating billboard. Most companies would be envious of that kind of advertising. The least they should have done was put an "I'm with stupid" arrow pointing down, or something...

  5. Elections and Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put the (Green Tea Party/GreenPeace) in Jail spare the Mississippi Rod(GreenPeace Tea Party)...

  6. Thank god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the 10 people in Bluffdale that don't work for the NSA can start a petition to get the data center shutdown.

  7. They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad they are so utterly tone-deaf that they put up a website that requires not just your zipcode but also your street address in order to look up your congressional representative's record on the NSA. Stupid web2.0 fuckheads couldn't at least include a link to a list of reps to pick from in case we didn't want to hand out our home address to god knows what data brokers? Even when I disabled noscript and disabled requestpolicy that damn lookup still wouldn't work either. Epic fucking fail.

    1. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're going to be targetted for looking up your representative's record?
      Loosen the tinfoil just a bit.

    2. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be a sting launched by the government.

    3. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're going to be targetted for looking up your representative's record?
      Loosen the tinfoil just a bit.

      The implication is (probably) that by looking up your rep via your address, you are handing your address off to some unknown cookie hoarder, who will use it later on to tell the porn sites which city to plug into the "horny moms on Xyz Street need love now!!" popups you see. And that shit is just so creepy.

    4. Re:They screwed up the website by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So you're going to be targetted for looking up your representative's record?

      No, you're going to be targeted for looking up your representative's record regarding the NSA.

      Considering today's level of technology, does this really seem all that far fetched? A program watches the data stream, cross references the list of people who complain with what those people own, their health records, employment records, ie anything that could be used against them at some point, and if the system gets a significant enough hit, out goes the request for Judge Rubberstamp to sign some FISA warrants.

      Shit, other than the back end, they probably scripted most of it over a weekend.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So you're going to be targetted for looking up your representative's record?

      Yes. The fact that you cared enough to look up your congressional representative's record on the NSA is valuable data to the data brokers. They will sell it to political campaigns that will attempt to deceive you into voting for their candidate by showing you ads about how their candidate appears to be anti-NSA. They will sell that info to marketing campaigns looking to manipulate you into buying stuff by emphasizing how it might protect you from snooping (whether or not the products is effective is something you'll have to figure out on your own). They could also easily sell it to law enforcement groups looking to put people on their "anti-government" watch lists because for way too many people in the government, criticism of the government makes you a potential terrorist.

    6. Re:They screwed up the website by nelk · · Score: 1

      Too bad they are so utterly tone-deaf that they put up a website that requires not just your zipcode but also your street address in order to look up your congressional representative's record on the NSA. Stupid web2.0 fuckheads couldn't at least include a link to a list of reps to pick from in case we didn't want to hand out our home address to god knows what data brokers? Even when I disabled noscript and disabled requestpolicy that damn lookup still wouldn't work either. Epic fucking fail.

      'Full Scorecard' link at the top of the site: https://standagainstspying.org...

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
    7. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. That link ought to be on the page right where it says "No zip code? Sign the open letter below." Especially since signing the letter asks for a zip code.

      Still disappointed it requires javascript.. That sort of drop-down stuff can be easily done in pure CSS.

    8. Re:They screwed up the website by colfer · · Score: 1

      Click "Full Scorecard." It's an interesting mix of D's and R's.

    9. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're going to be targetted for looking up your representative's record?

      No, you're going to be targeted for looking up your representative's record regarding the NSA.

      Considering today's level of technology, does this really seem all that far fetched? A program watches the data stream, cross references the list of people who complain with what those people own, their health records, employment records, ie anything that could be used against them at some point, and if the system gets a significant enough hit, out goes the request for Judge Rubberstamp to sign some FISA warrants.

      Shit, other than the back end, they probably scripted most of it over a weekend.

      Of COURSE this information would be valuable to anyone running for election, the question is how much or little they'd pay for it. Understanding, the purpose would be for tailoring the message of political ads run in different parts, not whatever kooky business the GP was probably thinking.

    10. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just enter a fake address. Or, if there is validation, enter the address of your town hall. :)

    11. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...a website that requires...

      You know, you could just click on the giant link for "FULL SCORECARD" and browse all the members of Congress, including your own state.

      Or, instead, just complain on /.

    12. Re:They screwed up the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, other than the back end, they probably scripted most of it over a weekend.

      This, if anything, shows that they at least aren't stupid. Building up an infrastructure which gives the geeks an API they can write their scripts against. That is far more efficient than trying to fit everything inside a graphical user interface.

      Or, it's a fortunate result of contracting the development to whatever company, and the only usable part of the resulting product is if you hack in your own scripts in the middle of it...

    13. Re:They screwed up the website by Sciath · · Score: 1

      I can't conclude politicians even care. Their caring goes as far as saying what they feel they have to say to get re-elected... period. And they know from the get-go that individuals looking up voting records means nothing when it come to taking the most votes. Because 99.999% of voters have their head up their ass on any given day especially on election day.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    14. Re:They screwed up the website by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Honeypot? False flag? Maybe the NSA is ignoring the blimp because they know it's perfectly safe, because THEY put it there?

  8. Two thoughts by Nutria · · Score: 0

    (1) Does the NSA really care?
    (2) How much helium are they wasting with this stunt?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Two thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thermal airship

      they are not using helium at all.

    2. Re:Two thoughts by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correct. The blimp in question is a four-seater GEFA-FLUG AS 105 GD/4 with a 41-meter Hyperlast envelope that inflates using two Cameron Shadow burners. It's powered by a Rotax 582 UL engine putting out 65 horsepower, mounted in pusher configuration with a four-bladed, fixed-pitch Helix H50F prop. (That's an ultralight engine and a lightweight glass / carbon-fiber prop, incidentally. Dy weight is under 1,100 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight is under 2,000 pounds.)

      http://www.gefa-flug.de/index....

    3. Re:Two thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That description seems way too cool when you lay it out like that.
      It's a blimp. A hot-air blimp, sure. But still, a blimp.

  9. Fantastic by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

    Fantastic. Way to go guys. Really, bravo.

  10. How did I end up liking something Greenpeace did? by digsbo · · Score: 1

    Politics makes for strange bedfellows, indeed.

  11. the NSA already thought of this. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bluffdale Utah has a population of approximately 8000 residents who could at any time have seen the blimp, but the location of the site is so far to the outskirts of the city as to make it pointless. the only person who would see it immediately would be perhaps NSA employees entering and egressing, but its unlikely that theyd care.

    protesting over congress and capitol hill would make more sense, but thats illegal incursion into a longstanding no fly zone.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      protesting over congress and capitol hill would make more sense, but thats illegal incursion into a longstanding no fly zone.

      Does no fly zones apply to objects lacking a motor or engine?

    2. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Does no fly zones apply to objects lacking a motor or engine?

      Try it and find out?

      On a different note, I notice that absolutely no national news (besides Wired) is covering this, so what's the point?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by kirkc99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Salt Lake area resident here. The data center is easily visible from I-15, on a busy commute from Salt Lake County to Utah County. I am sure the blimp would have been visible to tens of thousands of people on their commutes to work.

    4. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Bluffdale Utah has a population of approximately 8000 residents who could at any time have seen the blimp, but the location of the site is so far to the outskirts of the city as to make it pointless.

      If only someone had invented a tele-seeing apparatus— then people from all over the world could witness and converse about their protest.

      Alas, such a thing does not exist, so no one even knows it happened.

      Pity.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The NSA facility sits on a hill directly to the west of I-15, it's visible to every driver traversing I-15 along with the entire population of Lehi, American Fork, Saratoga Springs, Orem and probably Provo as well.

    6. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the internet..

    7. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by anagama · · Score: 1

      the only person who would see it immediately would be perhaps NSA employees entering and egressing

      You seem to have forgotten that as modern Americans we have:

      1) Cameras.
      2) The ability to transmit photos worldwide.
      3) Access to the work of reporters who can add textual context to those photos.

      Even if the protest was seen by 50k people, what actually matters, is if it gets play on the internet, news papers, and/or television.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Yes they do, but that description does not apply to the Greenpeace blimp anyway. It has both an engine and a propane burner.

    9. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by kuhnto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no one would see this except you, me, and all the people on slashdot, and every person who reads a news story about it.

      --
      "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
    10. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Not really. Check the local news and plenty of residents saw it. In fact, the data center is easily visible by most in the Salt Lake and Utah Valleys.

    11. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have noted, it's easily viewed for a large number of drivers from miles around.
      My office has a fantastic view of the whole facility from about 2km east, and it's a very, very well populated area during the work day.

      Unfortunately I hadn't heard about it until hours later, and I didn't hear a single person mention it all day. Sounds like they chose the wrong time of day to fly, not the wrong location.

    12. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does no fly zones apply to objects lacking a motor or engine?

      Try it and find out?

      On a different note, I notice that absolutely no national news (besides Wired) is covering this, so what's the point?

      Man, people were probably murdered in your state this week that weren't reported in your local news. That doesn't make it a media conspiracy.

    13. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up drinkypoo

    14. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Score you -1 "Clueless". The purpose of the protest wasn't to be seen by people nearby - it was to generate articles and blog posts and tweets that will be seen by tens of millions.

    15. Re:the NSA already thought of this. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Man, people were probably murdered in your state this week that weren't reported in your local news. That doesn't make it a media conspiracy.

      I've been fucking your mother, and we've been talking about throwing you out of the basement so we can make it into a sex dungeon.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  12. rest in peace aaron swartz THE INTERNET'S OWN BOY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now we're listening? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aaron+swartz

  13. That's cute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  14. Ineffective publicity stunt by stevez67 · · Score: 0

    Most people will laugh it off as just what it is ... a publicity stunt by a bunch of attention whores.

    1. Re:Ineffective publicity stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ineffective? It got our attention, didn't it?

    2. Re:Ineffective publicity stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ineffective? They got the national/international ( you do know that /. is read more more than just Mericans right?) attention they wanted, and you helped by commenting on it.

    3. Re: Ineffective publicity stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexicans don't have Internet

  15. Never Saw It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I drove due west straight toward the NSA center and never saw it this morning. Not very effective in that regard.

    1. Re: Never Saw It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop looking at Slashdot while driving

  16. THIS IS CIA COINTELPRO by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    We're talking those idjits at Greenpeace, here. Anybody that was on the fence on this just went with the NSA.
    They should have done a promo showing all the LOLCATS the NSA's put in GITMO, people'd burn the place down then.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  17. Surprised by Mack428 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that it wasn't shot down and labeled a terrerist act.

  18. mis-targeted.. by nblender · · Score: 2

    I can't help but think the people you really want to antagonize are the employees and contractors... A Blimp that says something like "amoral and unethical people work here and spy on you" might do more to create unrest... The people who work there probably live in the community or surrounding community... If you can make someone uneasy about their employer, that's probably better...

     

  19. "NSA! "We've got NSA here!" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "See? Nobody cares."

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:"NSA! "We've got NSA here!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Our lives are in your hands and you've got butterfingers!"

    2. Re:"NSA! "We've got NSA here!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a story that got way blown out of proportion. The NSA doesn't impact your lives, a bunch of other things do. And those things are changing society.

      Now, if the NSA was using the information for nefarious purposes, that would be bad and should be debated and the million or so citizens with top secret clearances should be allowed to oversee it and provide input.

      But, this is just pretty much pointless. What is Greenpeace doing? Protesting the amount of power it will take? They should be showing people how to build ecofriendly homes and getting legislation passed. Stay focused.

  20. R.I.P. by Torodung · · Score: 1

    Better that it should read "U.S. commerce R.I.P. No one will use our products again."

    But that would mean one of those scrolly signs and a big-ass battery.

  21. NSA Data Center info site by saccade.com · · Score: 1

    You can learn more about the NSA data center here.

  22. In totalitarian USA by abrahamOH · · Score: 1

    NSA will blimp you from behind.

  23. federal law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's nothing that allows that datacenter to have restricted airspace. They're complying with the law.

    Unfortuantely, I just lost a lot of respect for the EFF when they aligned themselves with greenpeace. EFF has been, until this point, a consistently ethical organization. Greenpeace has been, to this point, consistently unethical.

    1. Re:federal law by present_arms · · Score: 2

      "Unfortuantely, I just lost a lot of respect for the EFF when they aligned themselves with greenpeace. EFF has been, until this point, a consistently ethical organization. Greenpeace has been, to this point, consistently unethical." The enemy of my enemy is my friend

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    2. Re:federal law by koreanbabykilla · · Score: 2

      the enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemy, nothing more, nothing less.

    3. Re:federal law by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less. (Schlock Mercenary)

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:federal law by Immerman · · Score: 1

      which makes them an "ally of opportunity" - you both benefit if you synchronize your attacks on a shared prey, but you'd be wise to assume they may turn on you at any moment as well.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:federal law by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I should have said *potential* "ally..."

      And yeah I get the reference - it was a trite play on words then too.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:federal law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Greenpeace actually gets blamed pretty much any time any "pro-environment" organization does something stupid and obnoxious. This is why they have such a terrible reputation. Not to say they are totally benign, but many of the crimes that are attributed to them are often committed by a completely different organization with no ties to Greenpeace. They just happen to be the quintessential go-to batshit crazy tree huggers who are invoked anytime someone is talking about an annoying, save-the-planet type organization. Sort of like how Einstein's picture is plastered behind every single "quote-from-a-genius" somebody posts on Facebook.

    7. Re:federal law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like how Anonymous gets blamed for cyber attacks that they have no part in.

    8. Re:federal law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maxim 30: No shit Schlock.

    9. Re:federal law by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Viscount Palmerston, England, 1848.

      Not invented by Kissinger, though his quote is more widely referenced nowadays.

  24. NSA says... by Smerta · · Score: 1

    "Nice blimp ya got there. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it."

  25. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... welcome our new blimp overlords

  26. They should do it here: by Nethead · · Score: 1

    NRO listening post. Except there is no one around to see it.

    46.682162, -120.356564

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    1. Re:They should do it here: by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Never mind, upon further Googling it seems that they are shutting down the Yakima Research Facility. (Or as the locals called it, the ball bearing plant.)

      http://q13fox.com/2013/04/04/n...

      In a 2002 interview with the Newhouse News Service, Bamford said the Yakima facility obtained about 2 million intercepts per hour at that time.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  27. Location, location, location! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who posted (to wikipedia) the location of the CIA secret prison in Afghanistan (but only to about 5 decimal places), we now have a nice idea of the NSA's data centre near Bluffdale Utah. Its only approximate, but it seems to be at 40.4273N 111.9346 W . Only to 4 decimal places. 1/10000 of a degree is 36 feet. Somehow you will have to spot it.

  28. Superbowl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if they landed it in the middle of the Superbowl, then they might get peoples attention. They could even do it by remote pilot and live stream the whole thing. It would probably be relatively cheap.

    1. Re:Superbowl by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      They could say goodbye to their blimp after that though, if they even get through the security around the event. Could be worth trying with a big RC blimp that only costs 4 digits though.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  29. If you think they're such cowards, and lack shame- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are in reality a bunch of shameless cowards.

    Maybe it may amuse you to know that they scared the people of the United States into voting them into office in the first place, or were hired by aforementioned elected officials.

    What does that say about the voters? If a bunch of shameless cowards can scare you into voting for them to lead and rule and lord over you, (to be honest about the true nature of the relationship between the US government and its subjects,) what does that say about you?

    All I'm saying is, watch who you're calling black, POT.

    - Kettle.

    P.S., do you not find there's a certain delicious irony in railing against cowardice while posting as an... anonymous coward? :-)

  30. Re:federal law - NS have nothing on Greenpeace.. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Statistically Greenpeace have helped to kill maybe 5 to 10 million people. (with their 40 yr campaign to promote coal mining by stopping nuclear power)

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  31. and once again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this does what exactly?

    Anyone who cares or has a clue knows about the NSA issues.

    those that do not, are not impressed by a blimp.

    Looks more like groups trying to "do something" without actually doing something.

    where are the organizations of mass demonstration?

    Not willing to get up in arms with this President or something? Saw a lot more actual mobs over every real and perceived slight for the last Prez than this one even when caught red handed.