No Consent to Iron Mountain Gathering Data in Canberra and Possibilities of Peace as Undesirable

I was surprised to see Iron Mountain on the side of a van leaving the National Library of Australia. This historic library has a long list of benefactors suggesting the national archive is in private hands. Our data is being collected by foreign agents.

They are in Canberra.


MAY 6TH, 2021

The release of the company’s eighth annual Corporate Responsibility (CR) Report includes ambitious new goals focused on making a positive impact

BOSTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Iron Mountain Incorporated (NYSE: IRM), the global leader in innovative storage and information management services, today announced bold, forward-looking corporate responsibility (CR) goals under the long-term strategy of Securing a Sustainable Future as part of its eighth annual CR Report. Securing a Sustainable Future is guided by four defining pillars, Safeguarding Customer Trust, Empowering our People, Protecting our Planet and Strengthening our Communities, through which the company creates innovative solutions in socially responsible ways.

“We’re navigating challenging and uncertain times around the world, and it’s never been more essential for Iron Mountain to live our values and purpose whilst we do our part to create positive change in the world,” said William Meaney, President & CEO, Iron Mountain. “I’m proud of the resilience we’ve shown, the commitment and care we’ve demonstrated for our customers, employees and communities, as well as our collective spirit of innovation and collaboration. I’m optimistic about our future and working to achieve the goals we’ve set that will help guide our culture, actions and investments in the years to come.”

The pillar Safeguarding Customer Trust highlights Iron Mountain’s customer-first focus and goal to be its customers’ most trusted partner for unlocking business value in ways by helping to solve their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) challenges. Recent milestones include:

  • For the past eight years, Iron Mountain has been listed on the FTSE4Good Index, a series of benchmark and tradable indexes for ESG investors.
  • In 2021, Iron Mountain ranked #81 on Newsweek’s list of America’s Most Responsible Companies.
  • In 2021, the company also received certified third-party data assurance on its social and environmental data.

Within the Protecting our Planet pillar, Iron Mountain’s commitment to contribute to the fight for a net zero future for the planet, the company outlines its transition to electric vehicles, and its commitment to do its part to decarbonize the world’s electricity supply by setting a goal of powering its facilities with 24/7 clean electricity, working toward zero waste across operations. Key goals include:

  • By 2025, Iron Mountain plans to have all new construction of multi-tenant data center facilities certified to the BREEAM Green Building Standard.
  • By 2025, Iron Mountain has committed to go beyond its current Science-Based Target (25% reduction of absolute GHG emissions from our 2016 baseline) to achieve a reduction of an additional 25% of GHG emissions from Scope 1 & 2 energy sources from its 2019 baseline.
  • Iron Mountain has long-term renewable energy contracts in place to offset 100 percent of our projected global Data Center demand. In addition, by 2025 it will achieve 90 percent renewable electricity corporate wide, which is 15 years ahead of its RE100 commitment.
  • By 2040, Iron Mountain is committing to achieve Net Zero emissions, 10 years ahead of the Paris Climate Accord, and has become a signatory to The Climate Pledge.
  • By 2040, Iron Mountain will use 100% clean electricity, 100 percent of the time in its Data Centers. To accelerate decarbonization of the grid, the company is going beyond its RE100 commitment of 100 percent renewable electricity, using the Google methodology for matching site by site electricity use with local clean power generation every hour, every day to achieve 24/7 clean power.

Empowering Our People emphasizes the company’s commitment to fostering a culture of collaboration and diversity, equity and inclusion, where all employees are accepted and included. The company is committed to creating a workplace where everyone can succeed and thrive and where diversity is regarded as the greatest asset for innovation and growth. Progress and goals include:

  • Gender pay parity was achieved within 10 percent in the U.S., Canada, and the UK for all reported leadership roles. By 2023, Iron Mountain intends to expand gender pay parity reporting to cover all global operations, and by 2025 they plan to reduce the gender pay parity gap to 5 percent in all regions where they currently report.
  • At the director and above level, Iron Mountain increased the representation of women by 7 percent in North America and Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) in the U.S. by 10 percent since 2016, achieving its 2020 goals.
  • By 2025, the company has committed to 40 percent representation of women in global leadership, at the director and above level.
  • By 2025, Iron Mountain is committed to 30 percent representation of people who identify as BIPOC within its U.S. leadership at the director and above level.

Through the Strengthening our Communities pillar, Iron Mountain creates social value in the communities in which the company operates through supplier diversity, employee volunteerism and charitable partnerships. Recent accomplishments and goals include:

  • In 2020, Iron Mountain achieved a total diverse-supplier and small-business spend of more than $211 million (a 9% increase over 2019 spend).
  • By 2025, Iron Mountain employees will contribute a total of 100,000 hours of volunteer time to our communities through our Moving Mountains volunteerism program.

As a part of Strengthening our Communities is the Living Legacy Initiative, Iron Mountain has made a charitable commitment to support organizations that creates a link between the public and the preservation of culturally and socially important historical and educational artifacts and assets. Since the Living Legacy Initiative began, Iron Mountain has partnered with 20 organizations, supported more than 30 projects and contributed more than $4,400,000 in grants.

Iron Mountain’s CR report follows the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Reporting Guidelines, received third-party assurance and includes a response to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. To read the report in its entirety, visit Iron Mountain’s Corporate Responsibility page.

About Iron Mountain
Iron Mountain Incorporated (NYSE: IRM) is the global leader in innovative storage and information management services, storing and protecting billions of valued assets, including critical business information, highly sensitive data, and cultural and historical artifacts. Founded in 1951 and trusted by more than 225,000 customers worldwide, Iron Mountain helps customers CLIMB HIGHER™ to transform their businesses. Through a range of services including digital transformationdata centerssecure records storageinformation managementsecure destruction, and art storage and logistics, Iron Mountain helps businesses bring light to their dark data, enabling customers to unlock value and intelligence from their stored digital and physical assets at speed and with security, while helping them meet their environmental goals.

To learn more about Iron Mountain,please visit: and follow @IronMountain on Twitter and LinkedIn.

View source version on businesswire.com

Media Relations Contact:
Iron Mountain Global Communications

Investor Relations Contacts:
Greer Aviv
Senior Vice President, Investor Relations
(617) 535-2887

Nathan McCurren
Director, Investor Relations
(617) 535-2997

Source: Iron Mountain Incorporated

Iron Mountain On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace or Blueprint for Tyranny?

Extract: “…If my account seems to give Doe the better of the argument, despite his failure to convince his colleagues, so be it. My participation in this book testifies that I am not neutral. In my opinion, the decision of the Special Study Group to censor its own findings was not merely timid but presumptuous. But the refusal, as of this writing, of the agencies for which the Report was prepared to release it themselves raises broader questions of public policy. Such questions center on the continuing use of self-serve definitions of “security” to avoid possible political embarrassment. It is ironic how often this practice backfires. I should state, for the record, that I do not share the attitudes toward war and peace, life and death, and survival of the species manifested in the Report. Few readers will. In human terms, it is an outrageous document. But it does represent a serious and challenging effort to define an enormous problem. And it explains, or certainly appears to explain, aspects of American policy otherwise incomprehensible by the ordinary standards of common sense. What we may think of these explanations is something else, but it seems to me that we are entitled to know not only what they are but whose they are. By “whose” I don’t mean merely the names of the authors of the Report. Much more important, we have a right to know to what extent their assumptions of social necessity are shared by the decision-makers in our government. Which do they accept and which do they reject? However disturbing the answers, only full and frank discussion offers any conceivable hope of solving the problems raised by the Special Study Group in their Report from Iron Mountain…

The idea of the Special Study, the exact form it would take, was worked out early in ’63…The settlement of the Cuban missile affair had something to do with it, but what helped most to get it moving were the big changes in military spending that were being planned…..Plants being closed, relocations, and so forth. Most of it wasn’t made public until much later…. [no morality] … You have to remember — you’ve read the Report—that what they wanted from us was a different kind of thinking. It was a matter of approach. Herman Kahn calls is “Byzantine”–no agonizing over cultural and religious values. No moral posturing. It’s the kind of thinking that Rand and the Hudson Institure and I.D.A. (Institute for Defense Analysis.) brought into war planning…What they asked up to do, and I think we did it, was to give the same kind of treat- ment to the hypothetical nuclear war…We may have gone further than they expected, but once you establish your premises and your logic you can’t turn back…. Kahn’s books, for example, are misunderstood, at least by laymen. They shock people. But you see, what’s improtant about them is not his conclusions, or his opinions. It’s the method. He has done more than anyone else I can think of to get the general public accustomed to the style of modern military thinking…..Today it’s possible for a columnist to write about “counterforce strategy” and “minimum deterrance” and “credible firststrike capability” with- out having to explain every other word. He can write about war and strategy without getting bogged down in questions or morality…..

It is a truism that objectivity is more often an intention expressed than an attitude achieved, but the intention—conscious, unambiguous, and constantly self-critical — is a precondition to its achievement. We believe it no accident that we were charged to use a “military contingency” model for our study, and we owe a considerable debt to the civilian war planning agencies for their pioneering work in the objective examination of the contingencies of nuclear war. There is no such precedent in the peace studies. Much of the usefulness of even the most elaborate and carefully reasoned programs for economic conversion to peace, for example, has been vitiated by a wishful eagerness to demonstrate that peace is not only possible, but even cheap or easy. One official report is replete with references to the critical role of “dynamic optimism” on economic developments, and goes on to submit, as evidence, that it “would be hard to imagine that the American people would not respond very positively to an agreed and safeguarded program to substitute an internatinal rule of law and order,” etc. Anothe line of argument frequently taken is that disarmament would entail comparatively little disruption of the economy, since it need only be partial; we will deal with this approach later. Yet genuine objectivity in war studies is often critized as inhuman. As Herman Kahn, the writer on strategic studies best known to the general public, put it: “Critics frequently object to the icy rationality of the Hudson Institute, the Rand Corporation, and other such organizations. I’m always tempted to ask in reply, `Would you prefer a warm, human error? Do you feel better with a nice emotional mistake.'” And, as Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara has pointed out, in reference to facing up to the possibility of nuclear war, “Some people are afraid even to look over the edge. But in a thermonuclear war we cannot afford any political acrophobia.” Surely it would be self-evident that this applies equally to the opposite prospect, but so far no one has taken more than a timid glance over the brink of peace.

L.C.L. New York June 1967

Is this the Great Global Reset Planning behind closed doors?