
Room 641A - mimsee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
======
magila
I work across the street from this building. One thing I noticed is that in
early 2015 they boarded up the balcony on the 6th floor. Presumably it was to
stop someone from gaining access to this room by climbing up the side of the
building and breaking in through the balcony door.

[http://imgur.com/SA4DRjo](http://imgur.com/SA4DRjo)

~~~
comboy
That's interesting. Why would they do that? I mean if somebody is willing to
break through a balcony, traversing between floors shouldn't be a big problem.
And the second balcony is quite far away, there could be the same secure
entrance between it and the room, as the floor entrance (If you can't just get
there through the elevator). Maybe it's more about being able to see people
who work there?

~~~
magila
That could be, although in the time I've been here I've seen people out on
those balconies maybe twice, and one of those was when they were installing a
microwave antenna. I get the impression they are there mostly as a place to
shelter in an emergency.

Edit: Typically the stairs and elevators in buildings like that are pretty
well locked down to prevent unauthorized access from inside. The elevator
probably opens into a small lobby with heavy locked doors blocking access to
the rest of the floor. The balcony doors may not have been so well secured.

~~~
nxzero
Maybe it's just to protect the antennas from weather.

------
niij
>On August 15, 2007, the case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and was dismissed on December 29, 2011 based on a retroactive grant of
immunity by Congress for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the
government.

~~~
diggan
I'm not from US and don't fully understand everything that goes on over there,
but does this part mean that you can't sue any telecommunications company,
just because they have cooperated with the government? How is that sane? Sure,
I get it that the company was just following order, but shouldn't you be able
to sue the one who made the order in that case? Thinking about it, you should
be able to sue people who were blindly following orders, if the following the
order means breaking the law.

~~~
totalZero
I guess it means you would have to sue the government.

~~~
alanwatts
Which is circular logic. To sue an entity which you fund is to indrectly sue
yourself.

~~~
rayiner
What? No. You can sue your employee after all.

~~~
alanwatts
When suing in a case like this, punitive damages would be paid out of the
governments budget, rather than the personal assets of those personally
responsible, correct?

------
sgnelson
I want to know how many more of these rooms exist, and where exactly they are.
I'm surprised we haven't had many more leaks about them given what I would
consider the ease of identifying them. (ie, how many doors out there don't
have door handles and sit next to a huge fiber optic networking
infrastructure.)

~~~
GuiA
_> how many more of these rooms exist, and where exactly they are_

Dozens, if not hundreds, in every major US city at the very least. Have we
really not learned anything in the recent years, that we're still unsure about
such basic questions? Imagine the KGB at its peak activity, bump it up by a
few orders of magnitude, and you have the NSA. Man, despite everything, the US
is still really good at brainwashing even its most tech savvy citizens.

 _> I'm surprised we haven't had many more leaks about them given what I would
consider the ease of identifying them_

I think you're greatly overestimating "the easy of identifying them", and how
much the average AT&T employee knows/cares. Things are also probably much
better hidden now compared to 2006.

~~~
zeveb
> Dozens, if not hundreds, in every major US city at the very least.

That's the most paranoid thing I've read in ages.

NSA's job isn't domestic surveillance.

~~~
Alupis
> NSA's job isn't domestic surveillance

We've known since 2013 that is certainly is.

~~~
zeveb
It's really not: [https://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/sigint-
faqs.shtml](https://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/sigint-faqs.shtml)

~~~
Alupis
Where have you been the last few years?

I'm usually not this snarky... but seriously... it's fact NSA operates an
enormous surveillance infrastructure within the US borders targeting US
citizens.

That is not debatable.

What may be debatable by some, is whether or not it's
legal/constitutional/moral... but you are not making that point.

~~~
lern_too_spel
You're right that it is not debatable. It's simply false. There is no evidence
that supports your claim of the NSA operating enormous surveillance
infrastructure targeting US citizens. The one program that Snowden leaked that
included US citizen data (phone metadata) has since ended, and the way that
metadata was queried according to Snowden's leaks does not constitute
surveillance.

~~~
zeveb
You'll never win with facts, unfortunately: the only things that sway this
crowd are half-truths, falsehood and innuendo.

------
RKearney
Previous discussion from 1195 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847166](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847166)

------
iaw
There's no door handle on the exterior to the entrance to the room.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
I'm glad someone else noticed how unusual the door is.

But I believe I have an explanation. That is a emergency exit door only, you
can see the rivets for a door-bar across its middle, and you can also see the
alternative entrance door to 641A with lock in this PDF[0] page 14 from the
lawsuit.

I believe it is using this style of door-bar[1] (note the rivets). But
obviously that is speculative.

[0]
[http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/att_klein_wire...](http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/att_klein_wired.pdf)
[1] [http://i.imgur.com/NlpaqmH.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/NlpaqmH.jpg)

~~~
iaw
You're probably right, I wonder if there's a door entry that doesn't require
some handy-work to enter. Pretty interesting that that could be a defense
mechanism

------
em3rgent0rdr
I remember this, from before Obama's presidency, and after.

------
jmspring
A family member worked in that building back in the late 80s/early 90s. The
shenanigans laid out were already known about and occurring back then.

I'm not surprised.

