If every state stood up and passed bills like this the NSA couldnt have giant data centers in this country.
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.
You're hardly as "upset about it as you" if you can't see why any act that makes their NON-AMERICAN surveillance state harder to implement is a good idea.
But then, you used a throwaway account, so I think that speaks for itself.
Also, "throwaway" is a poor regex for "should disregard opinion". Click my profile.
As for your mentions of karma, and my commenting on "throwaway" being in your name - you're right, I don't click through and check the status of a user before replying to their comment on this forum, or any other - because I'd rather reply to what they wrote. Was I tricked by the "throwaway" in your username? Absolutely - your plan worked as you desired. If you think this makes me lazy, so be it. I'd say you intentionally mislead me, because putting "throwaway" in a profile is a common convention on internet forums, and I absolutely just accepted it as is.
What does "American" mean to me in general? I'd say the founding fathers of our country made clear their intentions in the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. To me, being American at present means agreeing with those intentions - which encompass a lot of ideals about personal freedoms, and rights to privacy.
I think the current attitude of many branches of our government toward our rights to privacy is "un-American" - especially with respect to the NSA. I'm not going to write a treatise here on exactly what that means, however I think it should be self evident to those who have a good grasp of American history. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that recent immigrants who have achieved citizenship and taken the requisite tests might have a better understanding of the concept of what "American" ideals supposedly are than many native born citizens.
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.
You do realise that you have a diplomatic corps with feet on the ground and people who speak the native languages in a substantial percentage of countries, right? And that e.g. CIA have analyst desks for handling exactly this type of thing?
What makes you think the NSA is needed for that? And even if they were, it'd be something like %0.001 of their resources that'd be needed for that.
The NSA's primary mission is sigint targeting non-public sources, as the CIA and DIA and other agencies are under substantial restrictions in terms of what sigint they are allowed to engage in without going through the NSA.
Yes but not the entire or only reason, so even if we had the best possible foreign policy, we would still need a national defense.
US military strength underpins the current Western democratic system, which keeps the US wealthy through trade and commerce.
How a country could exist without an organization that pays attention to what the rest of the world is up to towards the goal of keeping itself "secure" is beyond me. What I wrote was a fictional circumstance which I thought explained to others how you'd arrive at this conclusion - i.e. answering the question that was asked.
It might have been fine on other forums, but I see that I would have been better off letting the rest of my answer stand on its own merits (or not.) Will keep that in mind going forward.
No other country has intelligence services with even a fraction of the reach of the NSA, so clearly countries can exist without an NSA class agency.
Whether a country could exist without an organization that pays attention to what the rest of the world is up to is another matter. It's a role served by diplomatic services, and where even the most low tech intelligence agency can provide substantial additional abilities without stepping all over civil liberties. I don't see anyone questioning the need for a diplomatic corps, foreign service, or even basic human intelligence agencies, or for that matter basic sigint.
But it's an entirely different issue than whether an agency like the NSA is needed - or warranted.
Arguably, while the NSA may thwart some threats, it is also part of maintaining the image of the US as the big bully of the world, and as a result it is part of creating the type of threats it is meant to protect you against. It's self-reinforcing.
Arguably, NSA-type stuff (SIGINT) saved our behinds in World War II. Enigma let us read the German intentions, and Purple let us know what the Japanese were planning. The battle of Midway, for example, could have been completely different without SIGINT. So there's good historical precedence that we need something like the NSA.
On the other hand, we didn't figure out what the Japanese were up to by collecting metadata on domestic telephone calls. That is, some SIGINT activities are arguably essential, and some are... otherwise. The "otherwise" ones are both more intrusive to personal privacy, and less effective at national defense.
So one can be in favor of having the NSA, and against the NSA as it has become.
Side note: If there's ever another successful attack on the scale of 9/11, you're really going to see the US move toward a police state...
> is discussing is just Utah symbolically objecting to it.
It may just be symbolic, but sometimes symbols are important. If nothing else, if more and more parts of US society brands the NSA as un-American pariahs, it may make more insiders think twice about what they're doing (and about whistleblowing), may make it harder for Congress to keep supporting it, and may make their recruitment more difficult.
Deleted comment
I'm a peaceful person, but not all of the world is. You just can't ignore that. Even if you're Switzerland, you don't want to essentially keep your ears open for people sending coded messages about their potential plans to bomb Switzerland?
My feelings are not going to get hurt over an internet comment. And you were downvoted because your response to me was over-the-top condescending. I took the bait and made an inflammatory response in return, but I've since deleted it.
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.
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.
And as you said,
> I can't take your ideas about policy seriously if you are not connected to practical reality.
Yup.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/NSA+Utah+Data+Center/@40.4...
Tell me again why this would be such a problem for the Federal Government in the unlikely event that Utah actually signed this into law and it remained in force in 2021. I'm pretty sure that water access was something taken into account when they selected the location from the data center in the first place, along with the possibility of the water supply being interrupted by sabotage in the event of war.
Do you know how much water is in that river? It isn't all that large. Do you know how much of the water is already spoken for by various canals and city water treatment plants? Do you know whether any of the water in that river is actually available?
Same thing with the lake. The lake is the only supply of water to the river. You can't just pump a bunch of water out of the lake without cutting out the people downstream who need the water from the river.
This is Utah. It's a desert. Water's not a real plentiful commodity out here. It's precious and scarce. Most of the easy answers don't work. (If they did, somebody else would already be using the water from that source.)
You can keep pretending that if this bill were to pass it would be a huge problem for the NSA and the feds, but the idea that the Utah government would be able to hold the facility hostage is a ridiculous pipe-dream.
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.
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.)
Plus it's relatively easy to cancel a contract 7 years ahead of time, then renew it before that time comes up.