The Spooks At NSA Just Got Spookier...

[vienna]

Just saw this on the TV new/investigative program Inside Edition:

http://www.insideedition.com/headlin...c-building-wtf


Here is a link to a YT version of the documentary cited in the Inside Edition story:




https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/...n-plain-sight/

Just when you thought the Shadow State couldn't get any weirder, they take it to a whole new level. What is interesting is they built this facility in the middle of one of the largest US cities; almost always, such facilities are built away from massive urban centers, if not in some remote area, at least in the outer suburbs; most interesting...

Actually, such buildings are not that uncommon, albeit on a much, much smaller scale. Banks have long had IT (or DP, as it was then known) and cash processing facilities in windowless, nondescript buildings, often in the center of a city. My first bank job in Los Angeles (no, not a robbery) was in the cash processing and data processing center for a national bank; the center was a squat, 5-6 story building on Skid Row; if you walked by it, you would have thought it was a parking structure. There were other such buildings servicing other large banks spread throughout the LA Downtown and adjacent environs; at one point or another, I worked in about three or four of the others and it was always the same: some anonymous building, little to no signage, tucked away in what would be considered an 'undesirable' location, and always with high security, of which the average passerby would take no notice. When these buildings began to be established in the 60s and 70s, the banks had a paranoid fixation on the notion the hippies and commies were aiming to raid the banks (I kid you not; the banks really did believe this) so they tried to make their own little forts...

As far as the NYC building is concerned, for those who, like myself, were fans of the TV program, Person Of Interest,...

...Samaritan, anyone?...




<O>

[ikalugin]

In addition to those we also have "masking buildings" ("маскздание") which are shells of the buildings there to cover something of interest (ie a ventilation shaft).

[razark]

Originally Posted by vienna

What is interesting is they built this facility in the middle of one of the largest US cities...

What is so odd about AT&T building a global communications network hub in one of the largest cities? That makes perfect sense.

Or did you mean the NSA? In which case: What's so odd about them putting a listening post somewhere with easy access to a global communications network hub? That also makes perfect sense.

[vienna]

It is odd in the sense that most other alphabet-soup agency facilities are located outside of urban centers, usually as a means of having a buffer zone to enhance security and avoid prying eyes or, nowadays, technology that would be less noticeable or, perhaps, masked in a 'dense' environment; then, again, maybe its the old 'hide in plain sight' ploy...




<O>

[Von Due]

If you want to see collections of Govt listening stations in the middle of large cities. go look at every single embassy building on this planet. The complete list of employees in the building is not for the public, to say the least.

As for the video itself, it struck me of being more X Files than a docu, in how it was put together. Eerie music, a somber voice reading "mystical forbidden litterature", like the editing team was screaming "BE SPOOKED! I WANT YOU TO BE SPOOKED!".

It's a bit confusing though, how the film has a guy reading passages from a supposedly NSA handbook when that handbook isn't listed as a primary source at the end. What gives?

[vienna]

The film is an adjunct to The Intercept article and is a joint project between The Intercept and Field Of Vision, a documentary film concern. The text read in the film is actually taken from NSA official 'travel guides' which are linked in The Intercept's article; you can find links to the documents in about the 12th or 13th paragraph, depending on how you count paragraphs. So on The Intercept site, the documentation you seem to question is available for perusal. Two things should be noted:

1) The bulk of the Intercept's document releases are from the Snowden leaks, and the NSA, and other agencies, have not denied the authenticity or accuracy of the releases; in fact, there is a somewhat symbiotic relationship between the NSA and Intercept; the NSA appears to have conceded the data will be released in some manner, possibly by other than Intercept, and, in a move to mitigate any damage, have entered into an arrangement to where the NSA can ask to redact certain data and Intercept appears to be agreeing with most, if not all, of the NSA's concerns;

2) It is of Interest that Intercept is the site that on Monday, 6/5/2017, released the NSA report on Russian military intel entities' efforts to actively attempt to compromise the voter registration systems, and, possibly, election software and hardware in the days leading up to the 2016 Presidential election; again, the NSA has not denied the authenticity or content of the internal report;

The fact none of the agencies affected by the Intercept's releases have either denied the authorship, content or accuracy of the site's releases, and, in fact, are 'cooperating', albeit under duress over organizational concerns, with Intercept to mitigate serious harm, is a very strong indicator the data on the AT&T building is not X-Files science fiction, but, rather, disturbing fact...

Just something to think about...




<O>

[Jimbuna]

The truth is out there...

[Von Due]

I guess it was the tone and editing that nagged me. It reminded me too much of the countless conspiracy theory videos out there and if there is anything that annoys me to the brink of detonation, it's conspiracy theories. For NSA and suchlike, the line between c.t. and fact is blurry. Inevitable due to the necessity for hush hush and some people's pathological search for bogiemen, but it's extremely annoying.

I suppose my inbuilt low tolerance for c.t. came across louder than intended. When it comes to belief vs disbelief, I have no reason to pick one over the other, not without facts that is and I hadn't looked at the article you mentioned. All I had at the time of posting was that video in isolation.

Edit: Somewhat hysterically funny fact: This may have changed now but for the most of its existence, the existence of the ECHELON program was admitted by all participating nations except the US which, absurdly enough, kept insisting it was all fantasy.

[ikalugin]

Having offices in major cities eases the life of Agency's staff.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Von Due

I guess it was the tone and editing that nagged me. It reminded me too much of the countless conspiracy theory videos out there and if there is anything that annoys me to the brink of detonation, it's conspiracy theories. For NSA and suchlike, the line between c.t. and fact is blurry. Inevitable due to the necessity for hush hush and some people's pathological search for bogiemen, but it's extremely annoying.

I suppose my inbuilt low tolerance for c.t. came across louder than intended. When it comes to belief vs disbelief, I have no reason to pick one over the other, not without facts that is and I hadn't looked at the article you mentioned. All I had at the time of posting was that video in isolation.

Edit: Somewhat hysterically funny fact: This may have changed now but for the most of its existence, the existence of the ECHELON program was admitted by all participating nations except the US which, absurdly enough, kept insisting it was all fantasy.

I am actually with you on the video's tone; it tended, to me, to smack of either the filmmakers' trying to justify that expensive film school tuition to their parents or their auditioning for the 'big time'. Sometimes it is best to treat the 'tone' of something as a sort of interference: ignore it and concentrate on the actual 'signal'; as Joe Friday used to say "Just the facts". I also tend to get a bit weary of the 'tin-foil hat' bent of some of the YT posts. When I first saw the report on Inside Edition, I thought it was a fascinating segment and I watched the YT video. I did, however, want to know exactly where the data was coming from and that was how I went on to find the rest of the information. If you look at some of the other YT videos on the subject building or some of the other web sites, your 'conspiracy theory' qualms would have been duly justified, but the data I linked and described appears to have the most "spine": it stands up on its own. I have found the best way to deal with some questionable matters is "Trust, but verify"...

You're also right, it is amusing how some "Top Secret" matters are laughably transparent. How many times have you heard some intelligence or other government spokeshole use the term "neither confirm or deny" and immediately thought "Ah, then! It is the truth!"? There was some movie or TV show several decades back where two government agents were discussing how to get some information disseminated as quickly and broadly as possible:

"I know, let's stamp it 'Ultra Top Secret', the everybody will want to know!"



<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Having offices in major cities eases the life of Agency's staff.

Offices or major technological surveillance systems?...



<O>

[razark]

Originally Posted by vienna

...maybe its the old 'hide in plain sight' ploy...

It's really more of the "We need access to all these different wires, and all the wires run through this building" ploy. Why bother to run a bunch of cables out to the middle of nowhere, build a NSA facility to tap into those wires, then run the cables back to where they started and patch back into the system?
Instead, just build the NSA facility where all the wires are.


There's nothing mysterious about it. If you're going to build a port, would you put it on the coast, or would you dig a channel and put it 100 miles inland? NASA could have built a flight test center anywhere., but made more sense for them to do it at Edwards AFB, where there's a large dry lakebed and existing facilities, rather than leveling a mountain. If you want to listen to a bunch of phone calls, go to where the wires are rather than bringing the wires somewhere else.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by razark

It's really more of the "We need access to all these different wires, and all the wires run through this building" ploy. Why bother to run a bunch of cables out to the middle of nowhere, build a NSA facility to tap into those wires, then run the cables back to where they started and patch back into the system?
Instead, just build the NSA facility where all the wires are.


There's nothing mysterious about it. If you're going to build a port, would you put it on the coast, or would you dig a channel and put it 100 miles inland? NASA could have built a flight test center anywhere., but made more sense for them to do it at Edwards AFB, where there's a large dry lakebed and existing facilities, rather than leveling a mountain. If you want to listen to a bunch of phone calls, go to where the wires are rather than bringing the wires somewhere else.

^This and you wouldn't want to put up a huge sign next to the entrance saying "Spook Station. Guided tours Mon-Fri 0800-1500". Then again, perhaps you would

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by vienna

Offices or major technological surveillance systems?...
<O>

Cities are just the most convenient places (surprise!), as you get better access to manpower (which services the fascilities), network hubs, IT companies, power, etc.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

It is odd in the sense that most other alphabet-soup agency facilities are located outside of urban centers, usually as a means of having a buffer zone to enhance security and avoid prying eyes or, nowadays, technology that would be less noticeable or, perhaps, masked in a 'dense' environment; then, again, maybe its the old 'hide in plain sight' ploy...




<O>

Who makes these decisions? Board rooms, directors, agents?

Quality of life for who works there comes to mind.