Posted on 11/01/2009 7:06:31 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
There’s an interesting article in the current New York Review of books (predictably, a book review) detailing the history of the National Security Agency, that shadowy power-behind-the-power to which we surrender much of our privacy. That in itself is interesting, but I found the introduction a bit shocking: the NSA is constructing a datacenter in the Utah desert that they project will be storing yottabytes of surveillance data. And what is a yottabyte? I’m glad you asked.
There are a thousand gigabytes in a terabyte, a thousand terabytes in a petabyte, a thousand petabytes in an exabyte, a thousand exabytes in a zettabyte, and a thousand zettabytes in a yottabyte. In other words, a yottabyte is 1,000,000,000,000,000GB. Are you paranoid yet?
The more salient question is, of course, what are they storing that, by some estimates, is going take up thousands of times more space than all the world’s known computers combined? Don’t think they’re going to say; they didn’t grow to their current level of shadowy omniscience by disclosing things like that to the public. However, speculation isn’t too hard on this topic. Now more than ever, surveillance is a data game. What with millions of phones being tapped and all data duplicated, constant recording of all radio traffic, 24-hour high definition video surveillance by satellite, there’s terabytes at least of data coming in every day. And who knows when you’ll have to sift through August 2007’s overhead footage of Baghdad for heat signatures in order to confirm some other intelligence?
The article mentions that the NSA’s equivalent in the UK, the Government Communications Headquarters, asked that all telecoms providers store and hand over a huge amount of customer data for an entire year. They refused, citing “grave misgivings” and noting that at any rate the level of data collection expected was “impossible in principle.” Tut tut! Those Brits lacked the American can-do spirit. Thus it was that AT&T and other telecoms instantly complied with US mandates following September 11. The extent of the government’s meddling with switches, routers, antennas, and so on may never be fully known, but I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone reading this article isn’t on the record somewhere. Storage capacity of this magnitude implies a truly unprecedented amount of subjects for monitoring.
There is talk of the NSA shutting down altogether or being rolled into another agency, but I suspect that the “too big to fail” idea, as well as the “our safety is worth any price” dogma, will prevent that eventuality. It’s more reasonable to ask when or if its expansion will cease being sustainable. These datacenters, and the yottabytes they will hold, are extremely expensive as well as practically having bulls-eyes painted on them to the enemy (whoever he is) — though at under $10bn the NSA’s budget is a footnote compared to other programs and agencies. So is the increasingly (to use a semi-word that is only rarely usable) tentacular NSA a necessary evil of the digital age, or a cancerous money sink born from the colossal intelligence competition of the Cold War?
The answer will only be visible in retrospect years from now, perhaps when a sequel to the book being reviewed (The Secret Sentry: The Untold History of the National Security Agency, by Matthew M. Aid) is released covering the heavily-redacted records of the early 2000s. In the meantime, it’s probably best to assume that the walls have ears.
A great deal of data, that is. The old IT axiom “garbage in, garbage out” modified must be. All “garbage in” now it is.
No, but I hear tell that Rage Boy is infesting sites out there.
“Warp Core Breach in two minutes!”
>While RAM storage uses 1024 (2^10) as its multiplier, disk storage has always used 1000 (10^3).
Wrong[; you have an ALWAYS qualifier there]. The 5.25 & 3.5 inch floppy’s MBs ARE/WERE measured in 1024 units of 1024-byte kilo-bytes.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk
Further proof of this can be seen in the 512-byte boot-sector sizes on not only these media, but on hard-drives as well.
As is known in logic always (and for-all) need show only one instance where the claim does not hold in order to prove the entire claim untrue.
>While RAM storage uses 1024 (2^10) as its multiplier, disk storage has always used 1000 (10^3).
Wrong[; you have an ALWAYS qualifier there]. The 5.25 & 3.5 inch floppy’s MBs ARE/WERE measured in 1024 units of 1024-byte kilo-bytes.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk
Further proof of this can be seen in the 512-byte boot-sector sizes on not only these media, but on hard-drives as well.
As is known in logic always (and for-all) need show only one instance where the claim does not hold in order to prove the entire claim untrue.
We just grew our capacity to something north of 800 Petabytes (this is both spinning disk AND tape storage combined)....
I can’t imagine what a Yottabyte looks like right now. We aren’t even at a Exabyte yet ;)
Kick your ass I will.
I can has lotz n lotz uv storage?
Something tells me they won’t be using 5 1/2 inch floppy disks for storage.
I'm thinking they'll need 8" floppies for size. So, like a trillion Trash-80's.
“I’m in yer srvr nommin yer filz.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.