Turns Out The NSA Doesn't Really Want Drop-In Visitors (With Cameras) At Their New Utah Spy Facility

from the though-they're-a-bit-confused-about-it-all dept

Tue, Mar 5th 2013 2:10pm — Mike Masnick

The NSA's new super digital spying facility in Bluffdale, Utah got plenty of attention about a year ago, thanks to a detailed article in Wired Magazine by James Bamford that revealed many details of the center's existence. Last week, on something of a whim, Forbes reporter Kash Hill, who was nearby for another reason, decided to just drive up to the facility to see what she could see. It turns out that it was surprisingly easy to drive right up to the parking lot (though she later realized she had missed two small signs, saying that the road was private and that trespassing was not allowed). Still, you'd think that the place, even while (or perhaps especially while) under construction, wouldn't be that easy to access. Amusingly, it appears that whoever the NSA hired to program their entrance sign has a sense of humor:

However, the guards who eventually came to see what Hill was doing didn't have quite the same sense of humor, asking her repeatedly to delete all the photos she had taken, and taking her ID (and that of the other person in the car who, thankfully, happened to be a knowledgeable lawyer who was able to speak up for their rights). You can read the entire harrowing tale at that link above, but Hill is eventually allowed to leave, though she did agree to delete a couple images that showed the license plate on a guard SUV, realizing that she just wanted to get out of there. The whole story is a bit surreal.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bluffdale, kash hill, nsa, privacy, trespassing, utah

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2013 @ 2:28pm

they asked them ONLY to delete the photos and have not confiscated the entire memory card?
They got off easy... surely they know that almost any deleted photo on a camera flash drive/usb drive can be recovered these days, right?

hint: cgsecurity.org PhotoRec
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ZEM, 5 Mar 2013 @ 2:32pm

Re:
It's OK. Anyone can find this place. They just need to drive over a bridge and past a cocktail party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2013 @ 2:39pm

Turnabout is fair play
Any chance we could ask the NSA to delete the photos in their possession?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rorybaust (profile), 5 Mar 2013 @ 2:39pm

nothing a drone flyover could not achieve
the really funny thing is the same technology that the US Govt use to spy on everyone could also be used to spy on this facility.

I think the bad guys are already watching , keeping you own people in the dark seems counter intuitive
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam, 5 Mar 2013 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re:
1 setec astronomy ave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 5 Mar 2013 @ 2:42pm

Re: nothing a drone flyover could not achieve
Can drones drop small creepy crawly robot bugs in areas where Newton's laws have not been repealed by congress?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lance, 5 Mar 2013 @ 3:28pm

Technically speaking, and if the proper signs were posted, they would have no say about search and/or seizure of their property while on the premise of a federal installation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
really?, 5 Mar 2013 @ 3:33pm

what?
no sam fisher guarding the gate? shameful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 5 Mar 2013 @ 3:57pm

Tresspassing on a "secret" "secure" government installation (in progress) could net you a LOT worse then a quick ID check by some guards and losing a couple photos. Ill advised. Drone flyovers would be awesome though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 5 Mar 2013 @ 4:13pm

Re:
It's not really secret if an article about the place was published a year ago and if you have a sign that has your agency's logo on it. And apparently, it's not very secure either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McCrea (profile), 5 Mar 2013 @ 4:40pm

I remember when we got off the Metro inside the Pentagon at night. (They should lock that elevator if they don't want visitors.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2013 @ 4:53pm

Re: Re:
Most likely the reason that is was not really very secure is that the reporter was outside the secure area and in the construction area parking lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2013 @ 5:22pm

Off Topic - Kind Of - Watch the Skies
Dear Senator Paul,

On February 20, 2013, you write to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the administration's views about whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."

As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and have no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individual have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.

Sincerely,

Eric Holder,
Attorney General
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2013 @ 5:41pm

Seems like "missing" two signs on your way to a location you know to be a sensitive government intelligence facility strains believability. More likely the reporter, coincidently accompanied by a lawyer was there hoping for a confrontation, resulting in a "harrowing" story of their own deliberate manufacture.

I didn't bother with reading her riveting account as sorting my sock drawer seems like a better use of my time than indulging her concocted story telling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2013 @ 8:22pm

Re: nothing a drone flyover could not achieve
The "Bad guys" don't need drones, the US government probably willingly employs them but is too incompetent to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 5 Mar 2013 @ 9:09pm

Quick correction Mike,

It's Kashmir not Kash...

Other than this sounds like Kashmir, always trying to poke the batshit crazies with sticks *in joke..she'll get it* ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 5 Mar 2013 @ 9:47pm

Re: Re:
too many secrets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 2:42am

I knew a guy who worked at one of these centers back in the 50's. "This is only the half that you can see" sure aint far from the truth. The NSA has been monitoring every single electronic communication possible since people started sending them. To think this practice, and for that matter this type of facility, is anything new would be foolish.

If you think this can't possibly be true, go out and buy a brand new laptop / phone / tablet (wont matter) and pay in cash - better even if you don't buy retail - better even if you "happen upon one". Do nothing to input any sort of identifiable information indicating the device is owned / seen / acknowledge / known to exist to your persons. Then spend the next few weeks doing nothing but researching terrorist related content, use all the good keywords like BOMB, CELL, SLEEPER, ACTIVATE, DETONATORS, etc.. Jump around towns, use free wifi, travel to neighboring states and even after all that effort to remain anonymous before long a nice man in a black suit will come to visit your home to "ask some questions." (Only recommend doing this if you want quick access to the NO FLY LIST)

Anyway.. it's always nice seeing your non-ratified tax dollars being used to further trample whatever microscopic shreds of freedom and rights are left (probably none).

GO MERIKA!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 3:03am

Re: Off Topic - Kind Of - Watch the Skies
actaully, that response is more useful than it first appears- it says that yes, the president has the authority to, however, it would require a truly serious threat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:21am

Where's out_of_the_blue yelling about how they should have been shot for daring to to trespass (and ragging on Masnick for being so lame as to writie this article)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:23am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:21am
Must be his day off. Either that or his pager's not working.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:24am

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:21am
Chicken Pox?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:25am

Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:21am
Malaria maybe. Do they have mosquitos in Hell?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:39am

Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:21am
Mosquitos in Hell? Yeah, they do. According to Dante they're 3 circles above Downloaders I think...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:21am

Re:
Tom Thomas
Mike Michael
Sue Susan
Kash Kashmir
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Off Topic - Kind Of - Watch the Skies
> actaully, that response is more useful
> than it first appears- it says that yes,
> the president has the authority to, however,
> it would require a truly serious threat

Makes sense, too. I mean, it doesn't take much imagination to conceive of a scenario where the president might need to consider the 'needs of the many over the needs of the few'.

Another hijacked plane on a suicide run toward a crowded football stadium or skyscraper... it would be legitimate to shoot it down even though there are innocent citizens on board, because the cost of not doing so would be far greater. Due process and time would not be an available luxury in such a situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon anon anon, 12 Mar 2013 @ 6:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:21am
Why are you replying to yourself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]