Hacker News Reader

That is an interesting idea but it would be so much easier for them to constantly buy, say 5%, of the output.

Well I’m not typically a real conspiracy guy but if I had to really think on this I’d say it’s easier to have a loss event like this and consequent writeoff vs some unexplainable long term 5% buyer.

I also don’t think if I needed tons of storage like this I’d want to acquire it over a 20+ month period.

Obviously I think I’m kidding but the thought is interesting.

NSA knows they need the storage, they didn't just figure out they needed to store a lot of data to perform a massive buy. It would much easier for the manufacturer to disguise 5% of constant purchases through various techniques, they could hide it in all sorts of ways. Also the NSA could set up shell companies to consistently buy output (frequently done during the cold war when USA needed to buy supplies from Soviet aligned nations, USSR itself). The NSA could hide behind major buyers like Google and Amazon. If the plant shut down for false reasons literally thousands of plants workers would know if was false. That wouldn't accomplish anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com