Talk:Room 641A

PBS Episode
PBS Frontline just covered this room and its contents on 2007-05-15.

Original picture
I'm removing the original picture as it is not, in fact, a Narus STA-6400, but is a picture of the Clarkson Univerisity Open Source Institute COSI laboratory.

SBC / AT&T
The article current reads "...were occupied by AT&T before SBC purchased AT&T and changed its name to AT&T". Shouldn't this read "changed its name to SBC"? The sentence doesn't make sense. The room used to be owned by AT&T; it is now SBC, right?

well
If I understand things correctly, the room was owned by AT&T, but SBC bought AT&T, thereby absorbing AT&T into SBC. However, SBC, wanting to bank on the famous name, changed their name (SBC) to AT&T. The sentence makes sense that way, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct. I work in San Francisco for a company that contracts with AT&T and, formerly, SBC.  It's confusing and counter-intuitive, but makes sense in the context of modern brand identity management.69.17.49.17 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Outcome?
The article states the case was heard by a court, what was the outcome? Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Hepting v. AT&T, which leads me to the topic of the next section... —EqualRights (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

propose merge to Hepting v. AT&T
This article should be merged with Hepting v. AT&T (with a redirect) because it's short, is not likely to grow, and is only an artifact of the legal case concerning wiretapping. —EqualRights (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. Room 641A has importance in its own right as a confirmed, 21st century example of an intercept facility. It has lasting importance in the history of cryptography and signal intelligence. While the existence of such facilities is widely speculated on, see e.g. Echelon, actual information is extremely rare, and such details as are available are very valuable. By contrast, the legal case may well end up moot or another footnote to state secrete privilege. The articles are about different things and deserve to remain separate.--agr (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. The information presented is not redundant and may change as more facts of the case are released. I agree with the conclusions of agr and think that the topic is specific enough for its own article. --Teglin (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn OK, I'll revisit eventually. —EqualRights (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A possible merge target could be Upstream program. Here a source that describes what "upstream collection" is: The original source is this comment by Dianne Feinstein. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dianne Feinstein Accidentally Confirms That NSA Tapped The Internet Backbon

Nineteen Eighty-Four
"You asked me once, what was in Room 641A. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 641A is the worst thing in the world."

- O'Brien

It brings similar thoughts, doesn't it? ComradeSlice (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought the exact same thing as I clicked on the link. 201.37.191.252 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For those, like me, who thought that the number of the room described in this article might be a practical joke: The above apparent quote from 1984 is the joke. The room number in 1984 is 101, not 641A. :-) --RainerBlome (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

tapping nodes
i guess that someone might add the tapping node, as cryptically mentioned in EFF court filing, mentioned clearly here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/05/23/212557/-NSA-s-San-Francisco-Surveillance-Detailed 78.134.117.13 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)