Slashdot Mirror
Classified Data Missing From Los Alamos
LightSaber writes: "Here we go again.
This time it is computers and hard disks with nuclear weapons data that are missing from the lab vaults. This is really becoming pretty much a regular feature by now." Similarly, bapya writes:
"CNN reports a
secret nuclear information leak
from Los Alamos lab. Apparently, the disappearance of the records was reported on June 1. One official said part of the problem in tracking down the missing data is that the record keeping is so unorganized it is difficult to tell who had access to the lab and who could have legitimately signed out the material. How can we manage our critical information???" Oscarfish points out coverage of same on Excite News.
don't you all think it's about time that articles about stolen nuclear weapons tech got it's own icon?
The Reuters story at excite is pretty thorough; basically it's unclear whether the two hard drives were destroyed, lost, or stolen. Funny thing is, they were discovered lost May 7 - but the Energy Department wasn't notified until June 1. Employees are to take lie detector tests, and it seems they whole search setup is becoming a big mess.
The Washington Post story also has a good wrap-up. According to most sources, the drives were last seen in a suitcase in a vault in a Los Alamos lab. I think the confusion of the evacuation due to the recent fires might have something to do with this...
And here's the Los Angeles Times article.
By morning I guess most major newspapers will have it in print and on their websites, but in the case of something like this I've always thought earlier is better. Let's just hope the drives are recovered...
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
Don't you just hate it when you misplace your hard drive that has the top secret nuclear weapon information on it...
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
But nuclear weapons don't protect you from nuclear weapons; they can only assure MAD, and that only if you know your attacker. And knowing how to build, deliver and maintain nuclear weapons tells you practically nothing about stopping, say, an SLBM aside from what will or won't hurt a missile.
In the case, say, of an SLBM launch that may not be readily feasible in the time before impact.
In the case of accidental launch (possible, given that systems have been breaking down to the point where incoming ICBMs have been reported (falsely) by alarm systems), you generally don't WANT to retalliate, as if it's a single launch it's a bit petulant to destroy all life on Earth.
And so forth. MAD works only versus known enemies, like nations, that don't launch anonymously.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
well, the irony of this is the comments people are making here.
/. keeps talking about "free speech" and "free beer", but most of the US based readers fail to recognise Open Source on a larger scale.
most of the comments go along the lines of "stealing OUR information". Hrm. So like, it's evil for a company to not disclose source code of its competitive assets (ie: MS's kernel), but it is ok for America to keep its competitive assets (ie: nuclear tech) secret?
Isn't there something wrong here? Everyone on
And don't tell me its because atom bombs are far more destructive than the source code to a kernel. Go look at how Open Source tackles security - ie: Bugtraq, vunl-dev. That's all "open" - and everyone benefits because we can protect ourselves from attackers much better if we know their tools. So, likewise this should be the case on a larger scale - if we knew what weapons existed, we could better prepare ourselves against them.
See my point?
I mean, why is my own PC more secure than those on which the Government keeps classified information? Not that anyone would want to steal my HD and its 15 Gigs of porn or anything, but the point is if anyone stole my computer all they'd get is a standard Windows installation and a couple of encrypted drives. But from the way the reports have been depicting it, the classified data on these stolen computers wasn't encrypted.
Why oh why is my fetish for doggie porn and Britney Spears fakes more well-guarded than classified data? If I can get into the habit of entering a passphrase to access my data drives, why can't the DoD, State Department, et al. make disk encryption an across-the-board standard for all employees dealing with sensitive data? We can be sure that this isn't the case, because otherwise the government would be downplaying its irresponsibility by mentioning that the stolen data encrypted and secure. So the question becomes, why isn't this policy, and when will they wake up and make it policy?
[For the curious, I use a free Windows program called Scramdisk which can make encrytpted "virtual drives" or encrypt whole partitions. Its source code is freely available, but is not GPL. It's very secure with a choice of 256-bit Twofish or eight other ciphers. It ensures that family and friends will not uncover my secret she-male fixation. Oops, did I type that out loud?]
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Oops!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
There is a huge difference between understanding the concepts and having the hard numbers, engineering and fabrication skills needed to construct a weapon. The concepts tell you that it is possible, actually designing and building a weapon is the hard part. The first thermonuclear device (Mike) weighed 164,000 pounds and had a cryogenic system to keep the deuterium in a liquid state. The W-47 warhead for the Polaris missile weighed about 600 pounds. It took a lot of money and talent to get from proof-of-concept to a light weight thermonuclear weapon suitable for use on a missile.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I don't understand how anyone can be so sloppy with classified information, not to mention nuclear weapons information. When I was a peon in the military, we were always told of the exciting career opportunities in Alaska that awaited anyone who was negligent in handling classified information.
Or the opportunities in materials processing in Kansas? I expressed the same confusion to a co-worker because of a similar background, and he pointed out that those opportunities are part of the reason for the differences.
In the military, you are dealing with an enlisted workforce that can't leave (except for a window of opportunity every 3-6 years). The military has broad flexibility in the variety and degree of punishment, ranging from scut details to Leavenworth, and there is little difficulty in assigning that punishment, expecially at the lower end of the range.
On the other hand, government labs have to attract and retain researchers who are willing to work for lower salaries than their commercial counterparts. These researchers are more likely to look into work rules beforehand, can leave at any time, are subject to a limited range of punishments ranging from unemployment to prison, and have a high barrier toward applying these punishments. In such an environment, it is probably impossible to establish or to enforce security policies to military levels (which are not themselves perfect).
it was probably some really old russian spy who's been hiding out since '44 in the los alamos area...so top secret he was instructed not to contact Mother Russia untill he had extremely valuable information. Below is an encrypted message from "Vladimir" (as he is known) to KGB Headquarters, dated 6/13/00
"DEAR GOD!! THE AMERICANS HAVE THE BOMB!!!!"
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I hear the security is much tighter at government contracters than it is in the government itself. I work for a lab that does a lot fo governemt work. Sometimes I feel like I can't fart without getting some type of clearence. You want to take home that old 486 to make it part of your beawulf cluster? I don't think so! Governemt contracters are serious about security because they can loose their securty clearence. You can't fire a group that is part fo the governmemt as well.
I don't understand how anyone can be so sloppy with classified information, not to mention nuclear weapons information. When I was a peon in the military, we were always told of the exciting career opportunities in Alaska that awaited anyone who was negligent in handling classified information.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat