Slashdot Mirror


82-Year-Old Nun Breaks Into Nuclear Facility, Contractors Blamed

Lasrick writes "Private security contractors strike again, this time at the Y-12 National Security Complex. A nun, a gardener, and a housepainter cut through three security fences to find themselves 20 feet away from highly dangerous nuclear material. And of course, only one guard has been fired (the one who arguably acted the bravest and did the right thing). A Department of Energy report (PDF) on the incident found 'troubling displays of ineptitude in responding to alarms, failures to maintain critical 2 security equipment, over reliance on compensatory measures, misunderstanding of security protocols, poor communications, and weaknesses in contract and resource management.' The contractors have been put on notice, (PDF), but they still have the contracts."

223 comments

  1. I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Private security contractors strike again

    Are you implying that if the security were nationalized (ala TSA) that such ineptitude would not exist?

    Why the explicit blame on "private security contractors"? Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?

    1. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! so they can steal every time they are fired.

    2. Re:I'm confused... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3, Funny

      TSA servers the purpose, it was designed to serve, very well. If the TSA were to be put in-charge of nuclear material and made clear of its purpose, I am sure it will do well.

    3. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you can't find one?

      What if a military force motivated by money is inherently less effective than one motivated by love of country?

    4. Re:I'm confused... by Krojack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      TSA servers the purpose, it was designed to serve, very well. If the TSA were to be put in-charge of nuclear material and made clear of its purpose, I am sure it will do well.

      Say what? So you're telling me that they won't steal nuclear material and when caught try to blame it on the wife?

    5. Re:I'm confused... by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Private security contractors strike again

      Are you implying that if the security were nationalized (ala TSA) that such ineptitude would not exist?

      Uh, yeah. Or at least that's what the report claims somewhere around page 6. Makes sense to me!

      Thus, physical security systems and security personnel were managed by completely different organizations. The fractured management structure appeared to have led to conflicting priorities

      Now a nationalized or centralized management or whatever you want to call it can be utterly incompetent for entirely different reasons, look at the TSA. But it wouldn't have conflicting priorities unless they were dumb enough to intentionally bake that into the cake.

      Thats the problem with "just give it to the private sector". There's a zillion private sector companies and they often (or at least occasionally) don't work together very well.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:I'm confused... by Krojack · · Score: 2

      Thats the problem with "just give it to the private sector". There's a zillion private sector companies and they often (or at least occasionally) don't work together very well.

      I would also argue that various branches or sections of government don't work together very well either.

    7. Re:I'm confused... by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely right. It's a way to divert public funds into black holes through poor deals. Stuff like scanners comes to mind.

    8. Re:I'm confused... by rmstar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would also argue that various branches or sections of government don't work together very well either.

      Corporate bureaucracy tends to be deranged in worse ways than state bureaucracy.

      Modern, western countries can do very well in comparison. there is a lot to be improved, of course, but worship of the private sector is not warranted in this respect.

    9. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd actually prefer that the branches NOT work well together.

    10. Re:I'm confused... by __aaqpaq9254 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the point for me is, rather, not that nationalized security would be better, per se (although I think ThatsMyNick's point is well taken), but that the constant calls for privatizing things that shouldn't be privatized is really ridiculous. Companies exist to make money, and they do that by keeping costs low wherever they can, even if it means low beyond the point of reason...beyond the point of doing a good job. True, I suppose the company would eventually be fired, but only after a huge mistake (as we see here). When we are talking about national security, and a few other things I can think of, that isn't such a good idea.

    11. Re:I'm confused... by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?

      The problem you get is that there is a seriously limited selection of 'private' companies that are qualified for guarding a nuclear plant. There's a semi-limited number of people capable of it as well, given that they have to be willing to work for decent(but not high) pay, while being able to get a security clearance(and handle automatic weapons) and meet the physical requirements(shooting accuracy, fitness, etc...). You're pretty much restricted to ex-military.

      Having some knowledge of government type contracting, it's been my experience that you can have the contractor change, but the people in the contract seats stay the same - with the loss of the contract, the original contractor no longer needs the people, thus lays them off(excess). The NEW contractor needs people to fulfill the contract, and wait - there's people XYZ with years of experience in the role, in the local area, has the necessary clearance($$$), etc... Hired!

      The contracted employees themselves have to brush off their resume and re-interview for their job, but it's normally a formality. They might get ~2-3 weeks of 'vacation' where they get unemployment, and a day or two of orientation on how their new employer(the actual contractor).

      After all that, I have to say that I'd rather keep the function in house. Reasons:
      1. It's not a wide field, more of a specialist position with only a couple hundred plants in the states.
      2. It's a continuous stable requirement. Contracts are for temporary things(like renovating a building, upgrading a network, etc...)

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    12. Re:I'm confused... by drgould · · Score: 1

      Why the explicit blame on "private security contractors"? Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?

      Then you gotta go through the whole bidding rigamarole again, train a whole new bunch of contractors and you don't know if they'll be any better than the ones you fired!

      On the other hand, you've already got "trained" contractors working and on site (for a limited definition of "trained"). If you warn or punish the current security company, fire the incompetent guards, hire new, supposedly competent replacements, lather, rinse, repeat, you might end up with a competent security force.

      Six of one, half dozen of the other.

    13. Re:I'm confused... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporate bureaucracy tends to be deranged in worse ways than state bureaucracy..

      ...says the man who has never had to work with the VA Medical System, the DMV, etc...

      Half-jokes aside, there is one diff between a deranged corporation and a deranged government department: You can tell the deranged corporate department to piss off, or take them to court if their actions warrant it. Try doing that to a governmental entity and see how far that gets you.

      Even if your hypothesis were 100% correct in every aspect, a half-deranged government bureau is a hell of a lot more dangerous to individual rights and freedoms than a completely apeshit company.

      Something about having the force of law backing up the mental trouble that makes it at least two orders of magnitude more disturbing, truth be told.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:I'm confused... by fm6 · · Score: 2

      You're right, it isn't private security that's inept. It's outsourced security that's inept. Or at least it is when keeping cost down is the primary consideration — which is usually the reason for outsourcing.

    15. Re:I'm confused... by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Should obviously be secured by soldiers, since there is no private company that can invest enough in training or maintain the highest level of discipline. Of course there would probably end up being photos on the internet of the soldiers peeing on the nuclear warheads or shooting the nun from a helicopter...

    16. Re:I'm confused... by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know how things happen in the USA, but in my country top managers swing from public to private jobs as they see fit. It's not unusual that they seat at some public position, decide to privatise some public service and then sell it to a company they'll be managing after some time. And the said service always becomes worse and more expensive, even when it already sucked before. And the said managers can fuck up as much as they want that they'll never be made accountable for anything, whether they did it in a public office or private one. You just have to reach a particular level in the hierarchy and you're basically inimputable. As far as I know, it happens in the US, too.

      half-deranged government bureau is a hell of a lot more dangerous to individual rights and freedoms than a completely apeshit company.

      I guess that one you just completely made up.

    17. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the DMV's purpose is to make me wait a ridiculous amount of time to tell me that they sent me the wrong form and it'll take them 6 weeks to resolve some issue with my car registration whereas I could be pulled over or have my car impounded while I'm waiting for them to get their act together?

      I'm sorry, but I worked for a government contractor for many years. The government bureaucracies are FAR more ineffiicient than a private company could ever be. And, the average cost of a government employee, when factoring in benefits and all the rest, is significantly higher than a private employee and their productivity is significantly less.

      Government sucks at everything.

    18. Re:I'm confused... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Perhaps it should say "bureaucrat" instead of "bureau", but the point still stands. As evidence, I present to you such wonders as Child Protective Services, Contempt of Court, and various other bureaus and concepts where force of law has been both used and abused to extend vendettas, incompetence, and worse - with little-to-no repercussion against the instigator of the fault.

      And the said managers can fuck up as much as they want that they'll never be made accountable for anything, whether they did it in a public office or private one. You just have to reach a particular level in the hierarchy and you're basically inimputable

      Not necessarily:

      * If a fuck-up angered shareholders or really hurt the company's public image, the private manager can be fired as fast as the requisite electrons can hurl themselves at the screen displaying such a demand from the Board of Directors, majority shareholder(s), etc.

      * Removing a judge's fuck-up requires a lot of procedure, time, appeals, and burden of proof.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    19. Re:I'm confused... by rmstar · · Score: 2

      ...says the man who has never had to work with the VA Medical System, the DMV, etc...

      Ah, but thats the US. You people can't seem to get government even halfway right, for some weird reason. I'm not even going to mention gun control.

      Half-jokes aside, there is one diff between a deranged corporation and a deranged government department: You can tell the deranged corporate department to piss off, or take them to court if their actions warrant it.

      What planet are you livling on? I don't think it is the same as mine. You are more likely to win a suit against the government than against a corporation. Even in the US. Just consider the recent unlawful foreclosure scandal.

    20. Re:I'm confused... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Should obviously be secured by soldiers, since there is no private company that can invest enough in training or maintain the highest level of discipline. Of course there would probably end up being photos on the internet of the soldiers peeing on the nuclear warheads or shooting the nun from a helicopter...

      There's not enough of them. Too busy in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    21. Re:I'm confused... by hoth · · Score: 1

      Why would guarding a building containing a nuclear plant be any different than guarding any other building? You set up a perimeter and control who goes in and who goes out. No reason to make it complicated. And why did they let a nun any near a nuclear plant?? Nuclear plants aren't run by god and nuns can't help you monitor the rods.

    22. Re:I'm confused... by cusco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't that long ago that the US military used to secure these sites, rather than Joe's Security Guards And BBQ Pit. I'd rather see the grunts doing something boring though useful here at home rather than getting shot at somewhere they never should have been sent.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    23. Re:I'm confused... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, but thats the US. You people can't seem to get government even halfway right, for some weird reason. I'm not even going to mention gun control.

      May not want to get too smug there, sport...
      http://www.datalite.org/european-union-eu-bureaucracy-kills-uk-business.html
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2135851/91-days--petty-bureaucrats-control-freak-sponsors-squeezing-fun-Olympics.html
      http://www.votersrevolt.org.uk/?tab=V7
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4284070/British-bureaucracy-is-growing-out-of-control.html

      You are more likely to win a suit against the government than against a corporation. Even in the US.

      ...meanwhile you stay hamstrung by whatever binding and/or regulation they say you've broken. After all, no corporation can freeze your bank accounts, remove your right to drive a car, take your children, shut off your home's power/water supply, force you to remain in certain areas (and be barred from others) or lock you in jail while you pursue said lawsuits.

      Government can do all of that and then some, depending on the nature and severity of the incompetent/deranged action. Hell, the government can even assault your property with armed squads and shoot at your family. Sure, Randy Weaver won the eventual lawsuit, but his wife and daughter are still rather dead...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    24. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When I read TFA, I interpreted "contractor" to mean the contractor operating the Y-12 facility, not the rentacops. Y-12 is run by B&W Y12, a partnership of the Babcock & Wilcox Company and Bechtel Corporation. They probably don't employ guards directly, but employ some private security outfit to provide them. I thought the criticism was leveled at B&W for the management failure, rather than at the rentacops.

    25. Re:I'm confused... by bpkiwi · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't employees at a private company who were given the task of protecting vital infrastructure from threats be motivated by both love of country AND money? I'm sure contractors can find some patriotic security guards to employ.

    26. Re:I'm confused... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      There is a third option here. Not Government but not contractors. That's right people, they could hire their own security staff and train them in house (GASP). This would probably help communication, firing and hiring, and allow them to tailor protocols for responses and job duties better.

    27. Re:I'm confused... by sjames · · Score: 1

      REALLY?!? I suppose if the reason is to create the appearance of 'doing something' without getting anything done. They're 0 for 2 so far.

    28. Re:I'm confused... by profplump · · Score: 2

      The problem is the contractor the government hires to do the same work is still subject to the same isolation from market forces -- just because they aren't technically government employees doesn't necessarily make them more efficient. They've been hired to do the same job with the same budget and same expectations -- why would they do anything differently? Sure, the boss might want to skim a little more off the top, but there's no real motivation to change anything.

    29. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      (posting anonymously as I work for B&W)

      Correct. B&W and Bechtel manage the site. The security contract was given to a different company. B&W Y12 was ultimately responsible for the contractor, and as a result the President and Deputy General Manager of B&W Y12 have both "retired". They aren't the only ones. B&W manages a number of nuclear/radioactive sites for the government and owns facilities that build and fuel reactors for the Navy. This incident hasn't gone over well inside the company, especially considering the security inside B&W's facilities is extremely robust compared to the Y12 contractor.

      B&W Y12 has now terminated the contract with WSI (the security contractor) and has started the process of taking over the security.

    30. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother, when incompetence and laziness costs half as much, and nobody can tell the difference until it's too late?

    31. Re:I'm confused... by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      This is not a matter of a nuclear power plant, it is a matter of an industrial plant that makes, refurbishes and dismantles H-bombs, including not just US but former Soviet weapons systems. The only power reactor even nearby is a historic swimming pool design from the 1950s. Nobody at Y-12 is monitoring rods, with or without nuns. However, you might check out Dr. William Pollard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Pollard
      Who was an Episcopal priest and PHD Physicist and who did have connections to the Y-12 plant at times.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    32. Re:I'm confused... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      TSA employees typically don't steal from the government who pays them. Steal from anyone who visits the base, on the other hand...

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    33. Re:I'm confused... by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Corporate bureaucracy tends to be deranged in worse ways than state bureaucracy.

      My experience, having worked in both, is that this is 100% correct.

      State bureaucracy tends to be incompetent, and its principal failure mode is failing to do anything and coming up with excuses why it never does anything. Corporate bureaucracy, by contrast, tends to be nefarious, and its principal failure mode is committing pure distilled evil and covering up for said evil.

      If I had to, I know which one I'd pick.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    34. Re:I'm confused... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      I always though the reason TSA was created was to provide security theater. I am pretty sure they doing it well. Polls suggest people in general are satisfied with the TSA (as long as they convince the majority, this, they have satisfied their goals)

    35. Re:I'm confused... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      It would be easy to track. Even the TSA thugs know better than that. Besides the people selected for the job would obviously be better than the current TSA agents. You need real security, not security theater for nuclear materials.

    36. Re:I'm confused... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Their main purpose is security theater, which they do very very well. Anything else like putting money in the pockets of their buddies is a fringe benefit.

    37. Re:I'm confused... by wisty · · Score: 1

      Governments are not monolithic entities.

    38. Re:I'm confused... by mianne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention, the actual rank and file guards are probably the ones least responsible for allowing this security breach to progress as far as it did. They are trained to respond to the alarms and/or suspicious activity observed on monitors. They would not be responsible for ensuring the cameras and alarm systems are in proper working order. They probably are supposed to report systems which are not working at all or are malfunctioning.

      When equipment has been offline for months or years despite numerous reports, you can expect them to become demoralized--that their reports are falling on deaf ears. Moreover, as TFS notes, the lone officer who put his life at risk to apprehended the intruders, was summarily terminated. You can bet that any guard who dared going over their immediate supervisor's head to see that the alarm and CCTV systems were fixed would also be sacked.

      Blaming the guards in this case is exactly like blaming the miners for a mine collapse or explosion. In both cases it is the company owners, and their federal regulator lapdogs who are clearly responsible. These guards may very well all be laid off/terminated by G4S and then immediately rehired by Pinkerton Govt. Services or another similar firm qualified to secure nuclear facilities. You can also bet on a lucrative contract being given to fortify intrusion prevention and detection systems and that everything will be working in top order for the next couple of years--It's what happens after that, that matters.

      As cameras begin to fail, as alarm points begin to malfunction and cause endless false alarms; will these issues continue to be promptly corrected, or will they end up on the back burner as such maintenance requests get mired in a byzantine bureaucratic system and disagreements surface as to whether the security contractors must pick up the tab, or if it's to be reimbursed by the fed. Meanwhile the guards will continue to see that being the squeaky wheel gets you fired--being a whistleblower gets you arrested, and it will again be safer and less stressful to spend your entire shift in the breakroom than carry out the perimeter patrols every 15 minutes.

      --
      Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
    39. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...meanwhile you stay hamstrung by whatever binding and/or regulation they say you've broken. After all, no corporation can freeze your bank accounts, remove your right to drive a car, take your children, shut off your home's power/water supply, force you to remain in certain areas (and be barred from others) or lock you in jail while you pursue said lawsuits.

      I'm pretty sure that wikileaks might have a difference of an opinion. Granted their bank account wasn't closed but credit card companies did their best to prevent them from getting any more money.

      Government can do all of that and then some, depending on the nature and severity of the incompetent/deranged action. Hell, the government can even assault your property with armed squads and shoot at your family. Sure, Randy Weaver won the eventual lawsuit, but his wife and daughter are still rather dead...

      Except when they were Blackwater operating in Iraq.

    40. Re:I'm confused... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      And the said managers can fuck up as much as they want that they'll never be made accountable for anything, whether they did it in a public office or private one. You just have to reach a particular level in the hierarchy and you're basically inimputable

      Not necessarily:

      * If a fuck-up angered shareholders or really hurt the company's public image, the private manager can be fired as fast as the requisite electrons can hurl themselves at the screen displaying such a demand from the Board of Directors, majority shareholder(s), etc.

      * Removing a judge's fuck-up requires a lot of procedure, time, appeals, and burden of proof.

      Oh, man. There's sooo many ways things can be going the other way. The board may all be with the hand in the same cookie jar. As an example, it happened at more than one big private bank over here. The fuck ups were so bad they required State intervention to get rid of the parasites.

      Usually, when a normal guy fucks up he is fired. When a guy at the top fucks up, he faces what is called "crossing the desert". It means taking a (pretty well paid) secondary job and wait a few years out of the spotlights before coming back at full strength. Some of them already made so much money and connections that they can peacefully retire. Others are too greedy or too vain to be quiet for too long.

    41. Re:I'm confused... by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      In sum, they both apply some deep kind of ignorance to their benefit.

      As usual, incompetence goes a long way.

    42. Re:I'm confused... by pantaril · · Score: 1

      ...meanwhile you stay hamstrung by whatever binding and/or regulation they say you've broken. After all, no corporation can freeze your bank accounts, remove your right to drive a car, take your children, shut off your home's power/water supply, force you to remain in certain areas (and be barred from others) or lock you in jail while you pursue said lawsuits.

      PayPal surely frozed accounts of some of its customers.
      Dunno about cars but airlines could remove your right to fly if you are on no-fly list.
      Power and water companies certainly can shut off your power and water suply for example if you dont pay the bills.
      Private companies cannot force you to remain in certain areas but can barr you from entering on their property.

      Also, there are other evil things that corporations can do and goverment cannot. What are you trying to say by composing such lists? That private corporations are always better then goverment agencies? That's certainly not true. It depends on the specific situation and needs.

    43. Re:I'm confused... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Government sucks at everything.

      Generally speaking, it is correct. However, if you go into detail, it is not exactly. There are some that are efficient but not significant enough to be named. The inefficient part overwhelms the whole perception and becomes a reputation. So, I would say "everything" is a strong bias.

      However, when private sector deals with the government, there are always some sort of taking advantage (both the private & government sides). Yes, the cost to hire government employees (includes all benefits and such) would be higher than a private company, one should look at other reasons of doing so. The argument of money only is too narrow and just to support what you said (certain level of the truth). However, when you want to really dig into analysis, there are good reasons and it does make sense for why it is the way it is.

    44. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is that the contractor does EXACTLY what they're contracted to do. So if some fucktard writes a confusing, substandard or incompetent contract, that's what they get.

      The fault for that still lies with the government.

    45. Re:I'm confused... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In this case, despite the 'normal' affair, what I think needs to be done is that the contract supervisor(a facility worker) needs to be fired, and either the guard functions brought in house(not hiring most of the mid-high management), or contracted to a different party with tightened stipulations for meeting the security requirements. The old contract SHOULD(but is not guaranteed) have stipulations that allow pull-back of substantial funds for failure to perform duties.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    46. Re:I'm confused... by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      Why are we hiring incompetent civilians to guard nuclear facilities? We have people already on the government payroll that can do the same job and may just possible be more dedicated to the security of such facilities. They are the men and women of the US Military.

    47. Re:I'm confused... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that wikileaks might have a difference of an opinion. Granted their bank account wasn't closed but credit card companies did their best to prevent them from getting any more money.

      That actually proves my point, as it's government that is driving the whole Wikileaks affair. Do you think Visa/Mastercard/etc are doing that on a whim, especially given that they were ordered to hamper things from the (drumroll please...) government?

      Except when they were Blackwater operating in Iraq.

      Hired and given orders by... whom? ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. What's the punchline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like the start of a joke, "A nun, a gardener, and a house painter go into a nuclear facility..."

    1. Re:What's the punchline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The contractors have been put on notice, (PDF), but they still have the contracts."

    2. Re:What's the punchline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like the start of a joke, "A nun, a gardener, and a house painter go into a nuclear facility..."

      And had almost reached the reactor when they were accosted by a guard.

      "What are you doing here?!" he growled.

      "I'm painting saftety notices on the wall!" said the painter, brandishing a brush.
      "I'm blessing the ground to protect against meltdowns!" Said the nun, waving her bible.
      The gardener panicked and said "Err, someone told me there was a nuclear plant around here..."

    3. Re:What's the punchline? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      That is definitely worth a mod point or two.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    4. Re:What's the punchline? by fm6 · · Score: 0

      Darn, you beat me to it. OK, how about:

      A Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim meet on the street.

      "Silverstein!" says the Jew. "Long time no see! Who's your friend?"

      "His name's Abdullah," says the Muslim. "But he's no friend of mine, not since he converted."

    5. Re:What's the punchline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo.

    6. Re:What's the punchline? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Well played, good sir!

    7. Re:What's the punchline? by Guppy06 · · Score: 0

      The punchline will be when the nun is excommunicated for not breaking into an abortion clinic instead, being more anti-war than she is pro-life.

    8. Re:What's the punchline? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      "A nun, a gardener, and a house painter go into a nuclear facility, guess what is the joke?"
      "Security."

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:What's the punchline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or the method of entry. The nun prays and exorcises the first fence down, the second is cut with pruning scissors and the third is walked over with a pair of step ladders. The one who possesses these skills shall be unstoppable.

    10. Re:What's the punchline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What technique did the security guard use to remove them?

      The nun-chuck.

  3. Huh... by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 1

    I read 'over reliance on compensatory measures' as needing their paychecks too badly... Now if you'll excuse me, I have bills to pay.

    --
    I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
  4. Simpsons episode by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 2

    I'm totally picturing this happening like it's an episode of the Simpsons in my head.

  5. Is this a joke? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 0

    A nun, a gardener, and a housepainter walk into a bar...

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by jeffasselin · · Score: 2

      Not quite, it's more

      A nun, a gardener and a house painter walk into a nuclear reactor.

      I don't remember the joke, but the end goes something like: "and the nun said: 'it was huge and glowing!'"

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:Is this a joke? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I don't remember the joke, but the end goes something like: "and the nun said: 'it was huge and glowing!'"

      No. "I gargled with that water..."

    3. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      For a nun, that's a bad habit.
      That's why the housepainter gave her a new coat.
      The gardener was just there as a hedge.

      (Comedy night at the Security Theater)

  6. OK, seriously ... by Infernal+Device · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

    Admittedly, he didn't shoot anyone, which he was apparently entitled to do, but at the same time, he actually stopped any further mischief and was the only person (aside from the protesters) who didn't embarrass the whole nation.

    It's a pity Joseph Heller isn't around to write his life story or something.

    --
    "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    1. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to America!

    2. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the honest and competent man is the safest one to fire -- the incompetent and dishonest ones usually got the job in the first place by knowing someone powerful or having dirt on someone.

    3. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Classic example of "shit rolling downhill". His higher ups would love nothing more than to pin the blame on him and resume failing miserably at their jobs.

    4. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He probably did not do as well with his supervisor as the rest of the guys.

    5. Re:OK, seriously ... by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the linked-to DOE report, the guy who was fired wasn't quite as brave as the Bulletin article implies -- the DOE says he drove up to the site, stayed in his car and spoke on his cell phone with a supervisor, then got out of the car and just chatted with the protesters, failing to detain them or protect his weapon. When the supervisor arrived, the guard was instructed to provide cover for the supervisor while the supervisor made the actual arrests, but the guard did not do so, allegedly turning his back on the process at one point.

      DOE report here (warning, PDF).

      It's obviously a contested point, but the pictures painted by the Bulletin article and the DOE report of the guard's conduct are rather different.

      Also, yes, I read both articles, new here, etc.etc.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    6. Re:OK, seriously ... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      The worst part is they fired him for allegedly tuning his back on the trio who say he never did such a thing. To bad the camera's were not working to prove it.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    7. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything really had been stolen you'd not be hearing about it right now. It would almost certainly be covered up.

    8. Re:OK, seriously ... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is hardly the first time that a low-level employee has unfairly taken the rap for the mistakes / sleaze of upper management.

      Consider, for instance, Richard Jewell, who discovered a pipe bomb at the Atlanta Olympics, saved the lives of a couple hundred people, and then had his name dragged through the mud by journalists who'd decided that he'd planted the bomb himself (he hadn't).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:OK, seriously ... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

      Young grasshopper, when you have learned why managers punish people for bringing mistakes to the attention of their supervisors, it will be time for you to join the workforce. I've been fired several times for bringing security faults through appropriate channels -- in truth, management doesn't want to know about security problems and punish those who point them out, because once pointed out, plausible deniability goes out the window. You're making it their problem, and if there's no budget for said problem your paycheck becomes the budget for solving it. It makes them look bad and holds back their promotion opportunities -- and so while you may do the right thing, it's almost always a bad career move.

      Politics. It'll fuck you every time.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    10. Re:OK, seriously ... by Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the nun, if you read the article, he did not turn his back. It is a contested point and I wonder where they're getting that information. I tend to believe the nun over the government contractor.

    11. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we blame Romney for that one?

    12. Re:OK, seriously ... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job

      His job was to follow procedures. The procedures were pretty good, assuming camera coverage of the area. Needless to say the cameras are often / usually broken.
      He invented his own solution to the lack of camera coverage by basically turning himself into a forward observer.
      Boss not amused because that very publicly points out the procedures are inadequate and the equipment not up to requirements, and doing that is also not a procedure.
      So that's two strikes right there.
      You can imagine a guy who was set up to fail as the fall guy being a little pissed off at the time. I'm guessing that's how he earned a third strike and its bye bye, or maybe two is enough.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    13. Re:OK, seriously ... by knarf · · Score: 1

      Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

      Because they could not kick the blame any lower, of course. CEO suit kicks it to second in command who kicks it to section head who kicks it to department head who kicks it to location manager who kicks it to team leader who kicks it to guard. Guard is one of those who do the actual work all the suits reap their salaries from so he has nobody to kick to. He keeps it, gets all those suits angry stares and a pink slip.

      Simple, really.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    14. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the warning. PDFs scare me a little.

    15. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Based on that, I tend to believe that the supervisor was acting to cover his own ass. They needed someone to scapegoat and he was probably the most visible. Also, they could then undermine anything he might say that would embarrass them by claiming it was sour grapes over being fired.

      Being the only person to actually deal with the situation, rather than having their head up their asses, it seems likely that he knows just how screwed up the whole bunch is.

    16. Re:OK, seriously ... by Kittenman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

      Young grasshopper, when you have learned why managers punish people for bringing mistakes to the attention of their supervisors, it will be time for you to join the workforce. I've been fired several times for bringing security faults through appropriate channels -- in truth, management doesn't want to know about security problems and punish those who point them out, because once pointed out, plausible deniability goes out the window. You're making it their problem, and if there's no budget for said problem your paycheck becomes the budget for solving it. It makes them look bad and holds back their promotion opportunities -- and so while you may do the right thing, it's almost always a bad career move.

      Politics. It'll fuck you every time.

      True - I one time took over minding the evening batchwork at a client site. Problems most nights, which I slowly ironed out. Management asked why all these problems since [kittenman] took over the batch. Turns out the previous guy had been fixing them on the fly and not reporting the issues.

      My contract wasn't renewed.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    17. Re:OK, seriously ... by tsa · · Score: 1

      If he fired at the intruders they had a reason to fire him. Look first, then shoot if necessary.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    18. Re:OK, seriously ... by Grog6 · · Score: 2

      This is exactly how this works; Jobs are passed down thru generations of ineptness.

      I live near there; Everyone I know that works there got their job thru their relatives.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    19. Re:OK, seriously ... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      While perhaps not brave, staying in the vehicle to inform supervision is smart. What if he got ambushed while outside the vehicle BEFORE raising the alarm? It's a bit like first aid - first you call for help(get the ambulances rolling), then you administer first aid/stop the intruders.

      I know that I wouldn't want to arrest 3 people, even if they're old, when they're armed with potential HtH weapons(hammers and such), with me being the only person. The vast majority of nuclear intruders aren't violent, but you do get exceptions.

      As for firing the higher ups, it might take a while, but I figure some will lose their jobs.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A. Use the proper radio to report asecurity intrusion
      B. Plan to shoot first

      Just because tey claim to be anything is a bad excuse to give them a chance.

    21. Re:OK, seriously ... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      I agree. Going on your own against a group of people without notifying anyone first is just plain stupid. First you notify someone else, then you go. He even went before the others arrived. So he didn't shoot anyone, just held them there until they were arrested. Well that is what he is supposed to do. You don't usually shoot trespassers just for the heck of it. Not unless you have a bloody good reason for doing it like being in danger yourself.

    22. Re:OK, seriously ... by rmstar · · Score: 2

      Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

      Because the nuclear industry is a particularly pathetic and miserable heap of shit.

      How much were they paying him for watching over the security of a nuclear plant? Most likely a pittance.

    23. Re:OK, seriously ... by Jiro · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Based on the fact that the primary source is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, I believe the government contractor over the nun. I can't believe that nobody here has heard of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists before--it's a left-wing advocacy group that opposes nuclear weapons. Obviously it's in their interests to make the intruders look as good as possible and the US as bad as possible.

      They're also the same people that produce the doomsday clock, which says that we're now closer to nuclear armageddon than we were in the entire 1960-1980 time period.

    24. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also a bad move to ask "What's the charge code for that?" when you know full well your manager does not have a charge code for the work. Even worse to ask your manager's manager. Pretty much equates to, "F*ck you. You can't tell me to do that." Instantly brands you as "not a team player".

    25. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing courage - despite being fired once or twice for reporting security bugs - you kept on doing so. Bravo!
      Hope you make some good money as a security consultant or something.

    26. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The honest man is also least likely to be involved in shady activities with others at the facility.

    27. Re:OK, seriously ... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      So essentially he was fired for not being an authoritarian bully after ascertaining that the activists were not violent and/or dangerous.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    28. Re:OK, seriously ... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Some installations are shoot first ask questions later. Make sure you read the signs carefully before entering; "Deadly force authorized" is due notice you may be shot for being somewhere you shouldn't be. The rules of "castle doctrine" and who you can kill do not apply to government installations. True, you MIGHT not get shot if you immediately comply, but it's not a guarantee. YYMV.

    29. Re:OK, seriously ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you assume the nun's statement can be trusted? She is willing to break the law trespassing on the nuclear facility, that compromises her credibility. She might feel guilty about being indirectly responsible for this guy getting sacked and lie to try and help this guy. Or maybe she just wasn't paying attention to this guy and didn't notice him turn his back (look up the invisible gorilla experiment for an example of how lots of people can not see something right in front of them).

    30. Re:OK, seriously ... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      "Deadly Force Authorized" Signs don't mean you'll automatically be shot though. They're generally saved for installations where the federal government has determined that there is property worth killing to prevent somebody from damaging/stealing. Otherwise you have to demonstrate some danger against HUMAN life to get shot. I've worked within such areas many times.

      Basically, guards have a very consistent record of NOT shooting violent people even in those areas. It's 'mostly' a scare tactic. The response might of been quite different if they'd actually had tools to get inside the building, if they'd been armed with explosives or firearms, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    31. Re:OK, seriously ... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

      Admittedly, he didn't shoot anyone, which he was apparently entitled to do, but at the same time, he actually stopped any further mischief and was the only person (aside from the protesters) who didn't embarrass the whole nation.

      It's a pity Joseph Heller isn't around to write his life story or something.

      My first thought is that when a name comes to the forefront, disavow all knowledge. If not possible, blame that person for the failure and shit-can them immediately.

      Later, rinse, repeat.

    32. Re:OK, seriously ... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      The worst part is they fired him for allegedly tuning his back on the trio who say he never did such a thing. To bad the camera's were not working to prove it.

      The cameras were. The drives storing the footage just had a weird problem because of surrounding radiation causing a meltdown of the internal platters.. The rest of the drives are fine, so they can still be tagged as evidence etc etc... Just no data. Darn.

  7. In a nutshell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the easiest person to fire is the one who got fired. How many times does that happen each day.

  8. The only real change by kermidge · · Score: 1

    is that the guard who encountered the intruders was fired.

    There will be a small flap, and exchange of letters, self-righteous speeches, and it will be back to bidness as usual, which is to say what comes out of this will be slip-shod, ineffective, pretty on paper, and a few highers will make more money.

    1. Re:The only real change by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      bidness

      I have to wonder what happened that made you butcher the word "business" into what I just quoted.

    2. Re:The only real change by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      "U" key not fully pressed and finger slipped from "S" to "D" key, according to my analysis of the QWERTY keyboard layout.

    3. Re:The only real change by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Either that, or he's from Texas.

    4. Re:The only real change by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Or a gangster. Or from the south in generall...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:The only real change by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      bidness

      I have to wonder what happened that made you butcher the word "business" into what I just quoted.

      Considering that we're talking about contractors, I'd go with Freudian Slip.

    6. Re:The only real change by Wandering+Voice · · Score: 1

      Why not just axe him?

    7. Re:The only real change by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Part of use of 'bidness' is a play on the good ol' boy Sothren use of the word; rest is my personal context (which those who've followed its usage the past three decades or so might get) and stands for, among other things, the corruptive influence of the melding of bureaucracy, money, power. I guess I also talk oddly.

  9. Really? REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will government figure it out, that private firms are crap...

    1. Re:Really? REALLY? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      When the Republican party stops pushing to privatize everything?

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  10. Do you feel SAFE! yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time you're being fondled or irradiated at an airport in the Holy Name of Security think back to the extreme examples of incompetence, like this, that constantly bonk each other in the head at all levels.

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry

  11. Re:They were searching for ... by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Funny

    I blame Apple maps.

    I know, dead horse is dead.

  12. Within 20 feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They keep throwing around this phrase "within 20 feet", but what does it actually mean? Were they a short walk away from touching the nuclear material, or were they separated from it by 20 feet of steel walls and blast doors? You can fit a lot of security into twenty feet.

    1. Re:Within 20 feet by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      They keep throwing around this phrase "within 20 feet", but what does it actually mean? Were they a short walk away from touching the nuclear material, or were they separated from it by 20 feet of steel walls and blast doors? You can fit a lot of security into twenty feet.

      The logical answer is yes, there is a significant mechanical barrier that needs to be penetrated before you can get your paws on the uranium. However, given the DOE's approach to security, it's possible that the stuff is held an a metal sided shack in 55 gallon drums. Of course, it's going to be difficult for the nun, et. al. to do anything with it. It's not like they're going to pick up the stuff and run very far so I'm not so worried.

      It really is all theater, but I haven't figured out if this is a comedy or a tragedy.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Within 20 feet by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Informative

      The minimum method used is for handling machining wastes. There, supposedly, enriched materials capable of even moderate reaction are normally stored in containers no larger than 1 gallon paint cans, which are filled to very low capacities measured by weight (typically meaning they are each less than 5% full by volume), and then placed on a marked grid on a reinforced concrete floor, in such a way that there is a reliable safe minimum distance between them. People will supposedly be fired for letting cans get too close, as measured at ranges that are still way above actual risk. Materials that can oxidize spontaniously may be stored under oil or in inert atmospheres or both, as seems most prudent. Various barriers then further subdivide the marked grid, etc. All that's from public documentaries and similar sources.
      For actual nuclear reactions, we're generally talking about densities where you couldn't even pour all the material in all the cans in a single building together to get a reaction that could even just possibly generate enough neutron flux to generate enough heat that the materials could even just possibly melt and become concentrated enough to produce a level of neutron emission that would actually be dangerous to the immediate area adjacent to the building, or tighter standards.
      Chemical reactions, alas, are another story. Opening a single can of some of these substances, particularly if you could get it into an area with moist air or bring it into contact with something such as burning gasoline at the time, might be very lethal to the person opening it - there'd be a flash (chemical rapid oxidation, not nuclear) and the person would likely breathe in a lethal dose of a radioactive heavy metal oxide vapor - even there, persons who approached a few moments after the can was opened, say to render assistance to the idiot, would be in only moderate danger of a radiation dose health risk and if they suited up properly before cleaning up would be at very low risk. Again, that's theory - the basic procedues were worked out soon after the Daghlian and Slotin criticality accidents at Los Alamos in the 40's, they were refined after two non-lethal and mostly not even very injurious accidents in the 1958-59 period at Y-12, and they've been followed enough that there haven't been any more like those.
      In 2003, Y-12 had an accident involving depleted Uranium buring chemically in a hotbox experiment after Calcium reacted with water triggering enough heat to touch off the DU. That resulted in three employees getting heavy metal exposures considered unsafe, but not likely to cause serious long term health consequences. (That's a mixed reliability claim - there's some argument about just how much of a health hazard breathing or ingesting Depleted uranium is, and it's quite possible the safety guidelines for it will be toughened up further) This was the only nuclear related accident at Y-12 reported under the current management. Note that it's not technically a radiation accident, as DU just basically is emitting less than naturally occuring Uranium, and bringing more of it together, heating it, and so on doesn't cause it to emit more. If it makes a difference, it happened as part of an experimental lab setup, not the process plant.
      For Plutonium wastes, the amounts are supposed to be kept low enough that the potential heat can't trigger any sort of phase change, not just melting to an actually more ductile or semi-liquid state. It's the stuff actually 'stored' inside an H-bomb being refurbished that has real potential (although supposedly, the rest of the bomb and the Plutonium pit don't EVER enter the continental US still assembled - so if that's true, we are talking about parts of bombs, not complete bombs). So the question is just what was in the buildings the nun and her chums approached? Was it trimmed off milling wast

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  13. Can't help myself. I must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A nun, a gardener, and a housepainter walk into a bar. The bartender says: "Is this some kind of joke?"

  14. The efficiency of Private Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "B&W Y-12, a partnership of the Babcock & Wilcox Company and Bechtel Corporation, operates Y-12 under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy, of which the NNSA is a part". link

  15. Why even secure it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is Slashdot. Nuclear material is perfectly safe, in fact it's quite delicious, and unless we build new reactors for every single suburb, in ten years we will be living in an apocolyptic world with no electricity.

    1. Re:Why even secure it? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      ... unless we build new reactors for every single suburb, in ten years we will be living in an apocolyptic world with no electricity.

      Fun Fact: that was essentially Edison's plan for powering cities (just swap "reactors" with "coal-fired plants") before Tesla fucked it all up with his AC power transmission.

      The More You Know

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  16. The old nuns are the worst by Qwavel · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I've heard that many of them have started making a little extra doing espionage for foreign governments - to feed their habits.

  17. why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by lkcl · · Score: 1, Insightful

    um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.

    1. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      They probably thought what the nuns thought: that they would fail. Plus -- all the nuns ever did was make it to a locked building. Getting nuclear material out of that building without being detected and getting away would probably not be so easy. Even if you had such material, what could you do with it? From a terrorist's perspective, it's a lot easier to do something random, that costs a lot less, and takes a lot less planning -- shoot up a building or blow something up.

    2. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by rvw · · Score: 1

      um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.

      Maybe because they are stupid enough not to have thought of this. Maybe because they are smart enough to realise that walking into a nuclear facility is not enough to do some real damage. If you walk in there, you need a good plan, like the one they had in New York. And probably "they" aren't either smart or stupid, but we have stupid terrorists, the ones that are probably caught before doing real damage, and the smart ones... who knows...

    3. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by vlm · · Score: 1

      um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.

      From reading the report, which is pretty interesting, the best slashdot car analogy I can come up with is that if this was a car crash it would be about as severe as a headon collision with a mosquito, or maybe some bird droppings. Even better, say you wanted to steal a car out of the showroom. Well, these guys got as far as jumping the perimeter fence. There's a little more to accomplish before the joyride can begin.

      Defense in depth, quite a bit of depth for something this important.... and they got thru ... drum roll.... one fence....

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Because you only get one attempt at something like this, and if you are a real terrorist you go to jail when caught so can't try again somewhere else. Therefore opportunistic attacks or ones based on only a moderate chance of success are not very attractive for terrorism.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Even if you had such material, what could you do with it?

      Spread the terror. In fact this example shows that nuclear facilities are populated with morons. That is terrifying ... or not, if you are cynic like me. Did you meet a competent person this week? month? year? I didn't.

    6. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.

      I know your question is rhetorical, but I'll go ahead and answer anyway: Because there isn't a credible terrorist threat in the US. The Dept of Homeland Scammery needs to keep one invented so they can all keep their phoney baloney jobs. Same thing with the shoes and genital groping and whatnot.

    7. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Well, these guys got as far as jumping the perimeter fence. There's a little more to accomplish before the joyride can begin.

      Not to mention that 99% of 'these guys' fail to get past said perimeter fence. The pros KNOW they can beat the perimeter fence. It's the last 20 feet, and getting away, that concerns them.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by isorox · · Score: 1

      um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.

      Because there aren't thy many people willing to attack nuclear reactors for a cause, no matter what the media tells you

    9. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      Well the terrorists only act in ways that advance our military and business interests. If they attacked a nuclear facility, people might begin to realize that no matter the difference in current efficiency; solar and wind don't blow up when contractors cut corners.

      Al Qaeda his very helpful to the CIA and FBI in making sure they can invade countries, or limit the Constitution.

      Hopefully you can now add up all the mysteries of why our bogus security costs so much but accomplishes so little beyond spying on citizens.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    10. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Everyone I meet seems to think that they are the only competent ones in the world. But none of them are.

    11. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Defense in depth, quite a bit of depth for something this important.... and they got thru ... drum roll.... one fence....

      Well, according to TFA, they not only made it through not one but three fences, they never would have been noticed had they not banged on the side of the main facility with a hammer ( after taking time to hang a couple banners, splash some fake blood and Bible verses about).

      The real question I have is, why would anyone, yourself included, be an apologist for what is quite obviously (even to the casual observer) a gross breach of what should be one of the most secure facilities in the world?

      Not just breached, mind you - breached by a handful of damn senior citizens. If 3 old folks with bolt cutters can make it from the perimeter fence to the facility walls, how far do you think a well-trained team of professional criminals would get?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.

      Too busy with their election campaigns, obviously.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  18. ah contemporary private enterprise by bravecanadian · · Score: 2

    and the profit motive at work.. it really brings a tear to the eye when I consider how well unregulated private industry can solve these problems that governments just waste money on!

    1. Re:ah contemporary private enterprise by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      and the profit motive at work.. it really brings a tear to the eye when I consider how well unregulated private industry can fail to solve these problems that governments just waste money on!

      I tidied that up a bit.

  19. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fact that you anticipated the accusation that you are new here, by admitting that you are new here, suggests that you are not new here.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by tsa · · Score: 1

      One look at his userID shows you are right :)

      --

      -- Cheers!

  20. What about other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If security is this lax in the US, what's it like in other countries long forgotten stockpiles?

    1. Re:What about other countries? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Securely decentralized in order to deter major thefts, I suspect.

    2. Re:What about other countries? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Most countries with facilities like this have them guarded by their military forces, the same as this facility was until some point in the last decade when security was privatized there. Of course the military used to guard our embassies and many of the consulates as well, but now that security there has been privatized I'm sure that there will never be a successful attack on one that kills an ambassador or anyone else important. [/sarcasm]

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  21. Why aren't they dead? by Animats · · Score: 1

    If the guard force had responded properly, there would be dead bodies. The people approaching the facility had cut through three fences and had backpacks which could have contained explosives. Shooting them was authorized. But the IG report doesn't admit that.

    1. Re:Why aren't they dead? by Jeng · · Score: 2

      Just because you are allowed do something, that doesn't mean you should do that something.

      It was a bunch of out of work senior citizens, their ring leader is a fucking nun, there is no reason to shoot these people even though the guard may be allowed to.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Why aren't they dead? by rvw · · Score: 1

      If the guard force had responded properly, there would be dead bodies. The people approaching the facility had cut through three fences and had backpacks which could have contained explosives. Shooting them was authorized.
      But the IG report doesn't admit that.

      Yeah, let's shoot them! That would have been the proper solution. [/sarcasm] If the guard is authorized to shoot them, it doesn't mean he has to. The guard did the proper thing here.

    3. Re:Why aren't they dead? by supercrisp · · Score: 1

      Not really. That trio is there every year around August 5th. They are well-known to everyone in the area and to the security staff. I'd say the risk of discharging a firearm would be greater than the risk of a bomb being in the bag. And then there's a whole other sort of fall-out from shooting a nun.

    4. Re:Why aren't they dead? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      And then there's a whole other sort of fall-out from shooting a nun.

      True dat.

      Even La Cosa Nostra knows better than to fuck with the Brides of Christ.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Why aren't they dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends. Risk classification for that area might not call for shooting. When I served, the ammunition and weapon stores were really the only places where you could even voice out the threat of using a firearm, fire a warning shots or stop the invader if all else fails, with every step according to the regulations. Self-defense is obviously outside of any risk classification.

  22. You Answered Your Own Question! by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

    If he's the only person doing his job then that means his superiors that fired him also were not doing their job correctly -- their correct job being to fire the people who had failed through inaction. So, in order to maintain his status of being the only person who did his job, he would have to be fired otherwise his superiors might be misconstrued as doing their job correctly. This is all very simple Dilbert 101.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  23. You answered that yourself... by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job...

    Precisely because:

    ... everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?

    The company was asked why it shouldn't be fired. They suck and had no plan, but by firing someone they could appear to be "taking action". Buy why the guy who did something? I'm not really sure how that logic works. Probably claimed he should have found the intruders sooner - obviously it was his area to patrol since he found them (not obviously anyone else's problem). Yes yes, I'm remembering how a PHB thinks.

  24. But did she do it out of habit? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    God knows....

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  25. Because dirty bombs are worthless that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have been taught that terrorist would like to use "nookular" dirt bomb. In reality it is very difficult to spread radioactive elements which are not in liquid form in the atmosphere. You ahve to chose a medium half life element(short half life would be gone before the attack, long half life are much less dangerous and you can act upon them, for example by chelation and other operations or giving a similar non radioactive elemnt to saturate the body). So that leaves medium half lives. Then you have to have it in dust, and have a way to spread it wide, or have it soluble. And if you spread it too thin, then you don't get any effect, as people won't be able to get fears by seeing their geiger counter see anything. If it must be thick then the quantity matters, as a heavy weight is not easy to lumber around. And you have to avoid the various radiation detector.

    Now compare to simply putting a bomb, say, at a a building like the WTC parking. Much MUCH easier. And as effective. And very cheap.

  26. Why are they called "nuns"? Wanna know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's cause they don't get none!

    Thank you, thank you, I'll be here in the Tiki Room all week. Try the duck.

  27. Not Surprised by organgtool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And this is why I heavily oppose leaving matters of security, safety, or health completely in the hands of one or more private companies. These three areas are rarely ever cost-effective and they're not meant to be. The reason we have these services in the first place is because people feel that they are valuable to the well-being of individuals as well as society as a whole, not because there is necessarily an economic benefit. I'm not opposed to having private companies involved in these three areas, but I believe there needs to be strict standards on the quality of service they provide, strong government oversight to make sure they're operating up to those standards, and repercussions for failing to meet the standards.

    1. Re:Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why I heavily oppose leaving matters of security, safety, or health completely in the hands of one or more private companies.

      You are responsible for all 3 of these things at home. Government will provide few resources, some guidelines, but will take your kids or condemn your house if you fail.

      You (or management) is responsible for all 3 of things at work. Government will provide some resources, many guidelines, and will fine your ass heavily (or lightly) and possibly shut your ass down for failure to comply.

      You - as a driver - are resonsible for controlling your vehicle safely, emissions control (health) and keeping it safe from theft (security - insurance purposes). Government plays a large hand in two of these aspects and is present to confiscate your vehicle or fine you for failure to comply.

      In all instances, matters of "security, safety, AND health" are in the hands of private concerns (companies or individuals). Government plays a role as a standards setter but does very little. No doubt you agree with everything I said and will claim I am misinterpreting your post.

      My objection is the the "this is why I heavily oppose leaving matters...". The fact is, you heavily support the system as it is now - more or less. A fucking nun breaching a security parameter might be a big deal and wake up call to some, but it is not a reason to change any opinion about anything.

      How many stories have there been of ENTIRE AIRPORTS shut down because somebody breached security (aka walked past some on-the-sleep or brb guard)?

      It happens. Get the fuck over it and leave the political philosophy out of it!

  28. 20 feet of concrete away by Hentes · · Score: 4, Informative

    It doesn't sound as sensational after reading TFA.

    1. Re:20 feet of concrete away by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Yea, first the author has no way of knowing if it was 20 feet or 200 yards or if there was actually anything on the other side of the wall. And even then it was inside a very, very solid building and very, very solid containers.

      I recall reading a similar article about some activists who claimed they had broken into a facility and stolen a "warhead". Turned out they had dumpster dived and taken some scrap metal that was part of a heat shield. This article has all the same hype.

    2. Re:20 feet of concrete away by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Maybe the nun had Joshua's horn that could blow down walls.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  29. unemployed veterans by Anvil+the+Ninja · · Score: 2

    Wasn't there some news recently about record numbers of unemployed veterans? Kick the private contractors out and bring in a bunch of people with security clearance and guard duty experience.

    1. Re:unemployed veterans by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      The only two unemployed veterans that I know have more than one missing limb. Also, the private contractor is easier to sue/go after when something goes wrong than a mass of human beings who duck and cover when they hear a firecracker go off... or a Major Payne type individual who wants to take your mind off that pain! It may be unfair, but life is unfair

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:unemployed veterans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't let the Army guard the stuff, what are you thinking? The government can't do anything right, much less guard the government's enriched uranium. Besides, that would be tyranny and wasteful. Much better to employ some mall cops at 10$/h to do it than some fat welfare queens who suck up MY tax dollars, and want `hazard pay' and `pension'. Plus, if they mess up the company goes out of business, not so with the government.

  30. You think the camera wasn't working?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't be that naive.

    1. Re:You think the camera wasn't working?! by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      I should be ashamed of myself for reading it, but let's just say that I'm new here. TFA says that numerous cameras weren't working:

      Among the many vexing deficiencies in this report were the numerous inoperable security cameras. Indeed, the camera that should have provided coverage of the activists' point of entry had been out of service for six months; yet, in a 2011 performance evaluation, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) determined that the facility's security was "excellent" and "good." It's hard to imagine how the NNSA came to this conclusion given that there hadn't been a full force-on-force test of the facility since 2009. A force-on-force exercise is designed to fully measure a nuclear facility's preparedness against attack; it's the only real way to tell whether a site can protect the material it houses.

      It sounds to me like it's NNSA that should be fired.

  31. Clarification in the Article by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Private security contractors strike again

    Are you implying that if the security were nationalized (ala TSA) that such ineptitude would not exist?

    Why the explicit blame on "private security contractors"? Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?

    Probably has to do with this quote and link from the article:

    The obvious problems that result from so much contractor freedom are made clear by the recent inspector general report, which determined that this lack of federal oversight at least partially contributed to the success of the break-in PDF: "When questioned as to why action was not taken to address growing maintenance backlogs, Federal officials told us that with the advent of NNSA's contractor governance system (Contractor Assurance System), they could no longer intervene." In light of these findings, the inspector general had serious questions about the Energy Department's overall approach and determined that "current initiatives to reduce Federal oversight of the nuclear weapons complex, especially as they relate to security functions, need to be carefully considered."

    There are many forms of nationalized security: some very bad (TSA) and some very good (National Guard). Private industry will save you money and, when pitted against each other in true capitalism form, they will cut corners to win contracts. Somethings should have security independent of how the economy is doing or how low some no talent ass clown is willing to bid on a contract.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  32. Was her name Chekov? by mu51c10rd · · Score: 2

    Perhaps she was searching for nuclear wessels?

  33. What tipped the guard off by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    ...was that the nun was 8 months pregnant under that habit.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  34. Re:Obligatory by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 0

    Curse you for beating me to it...

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  35. for experimental purposes try this: by nimbius · · Score: 2

    s/nun/muslim\ woman/ relatively similar attire, devotion to religious purity and god. The reaction i suspect would however have been to close the nuclear facility, seal off the town, arrest the security guards, quarantine the state as a no-fly zone, burn the constitution and start a war with next->countryOn($list);

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  36. ironic by nimbius · · Score: 1

    Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said, "The department has no tolerance for security breaches at any of our sites, and I am committed to ensure that those responsible will be held accountable."

    you're a nun, you say? Well thanks for the free security assessment. In return, heres some biblical retribution.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  37. He DIDN'T shoot them. by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    That's why he was fired; he left the protesters alive, to give their story of how freaking easy it was.

    If he'd shot them all, it would have been spun very differently, I'm sure; people would still be looking for the missing protesters, and a "terrorist group" would have been the aggressor, all killed in the attempt.

    The Nun in question fell down during a TV interview at the Blount Co. Courthouse, and broke both wrists. :)

    I grew up in OR, moved years ago, upwind. :)

    In our drunkest hours, we never would have thought to do anything like this, lol. I always just assumed they Would shoot anyone on sight...

    Talk about Security Theater... :facepalm:

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:He DIDN'T shoot them. by cusco · · Score: 1

      moved years ago

      At that time the site was probably guarded by military, who may very well have shot you. The guys at 'Joes Security And BBQ Pit' aren't trained that well.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  38. is it possible that... by tatman · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that this is misinformation? intended to deceive some would-be attackers? Just a thought.....

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  39. Alarms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen security ignore an alarm that the AC failed in the server room. Security is only as good as you pay for. The military should be securing the weapons grade material not some contractor. Of course it is all the contractors fault and not the people hiring and auditing the contractor.

  40. Nuns, more steath than a navy SEAL by TiggertheMad · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why the explicit blame on "private security contractors"? Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?

    Why is this being handled by private security at all? I pay taxes to give young, trigger happy marines the state of the fucking art tools for committing mass murder in the most efficient way possible. Why aren't there a ring of marines surrounding this place with orders to kill ANYTHING that doesn't come through the main gate with orders signed in triplicate?

    Military weapon fuel, military security.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Nuns, more steath than a navy SEAL by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as a former U.S. Marine *and* as a current contractor working in and around nuclear power facilities, I sincerely hope you're just joking. The idea that you consider Marines "trigger happy" is highly offensive. We're trained very rigorously to *not* be trigger happy in the first place. We're not some bloodthirsty gang out to slaughter women and babies for the fun of it. If you've never served then I suppose it seems funny as hell to pretend that we are, but any professional Marine, soldier, sailor, or airman will tell you we do our damndest not to hurt innocents, even the point of getting maimed for life or killed in the process. Please try to show a little respect for that. And no, we're not victims looking for pity. Every one of us volunteered knowing what we were getting into.

      Regarding the security at a nuclear facility, I've seen Y-12. The guards are armed but the rules are pretty strict about shooting at stuff. You can be quick to shoot and more likely than not you'll make the evening news killing some teens playing a prank. Cue the pacifists, the anti-nuke protesters, the anti-military groups, and every other bleeding heart group out there for a PR debacle in progress. Or you don't shoot on sight and you end up with nuns, gardeners, and what-have-you painting bible verses on your walls. Personally, I'd rather have a red face for the activists showing off than have to live with killing civilians by mistake.

      Yes, the cameras being down is pretty pathetic. However, cutting through a few fences and banging on walls is a *LONG* way from stealing something like highly-enriched uranium. Last week I was walking 20 feet away from a nuclear reactor containment building, but there's no way in hell I could've gotten into it and I'm *authorized* to be on the site in the first place. Any bomb that's man-portable would have a hard time breaching any of these structures containing nuclear material. And if the goal was to steal a usable amount of nuclear material, any terrorist would have a helluva time getting away with stuff because it's heavy, dangerous, and stored in some pretty amazing containers.

      If you want to throw stones, find out who is responsible for the security equipment budget at these sites and why those cameras were down for six months. Of course, what you might find is the cameras were down because getting a *permit* to get work done at a nuclear site is beyond ridiculous. I'm being quoted a 6-12 month permitting period just to get a breaker panel put in for network expansion. That's 6-12 months of waiting on paperwork so a job that will take 1-2 days can get done. Yes, it's that bad, so maybe the cameras being down wasn't really the fault of the security group.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    2. Re:Nuns, more steath than a navy SEAL by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a former U.S. Marine *and* as a current contractor working in and around nuclear power facilities, I sincerely hope you're just joking. The idea that you consider Marines "trigger happy" is highly offensive.

      It seems a little ridiculous that you even have to make the correction. The nun and her buddies are still alive, after all. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Meanwhile nuclear-anything protests are ongoing on a permanent basis, and how many protestors have been shot? Any? I can't think of any. In, what, 40 years now?

      The permitting period is indeed beyond ridiculous. I don't quite understand why bureaucracy concludes that foot-dragging is somehow equivalent to ass-covering, but it inevitably does.

    3. Re:Nuns, more steath than a navy SEAL by deimtee · · Score: 1

      I don't quite understand why bureaucracy concludes that foot-dragging is somehow equivalent to ass-covering, but it inevitably does.

      The bureaucrats are waiting for someone in their office to give notice, retire, or transfer out. Then a whole bunch of stuff gets done, and if shit happens, then it is all blamed on someone who is no longer there.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    4. Re:Nuns, more steath than a navy SEAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spanish soldiers working with the US GIs in Irak in the early days of the campaign have witnessed their behavior first hand. And they have spoken freely on TV shows, newspaper interviews, etc.
      The general impression is that your common GI will start shooting at the slightest hint of a threat, real or imagined, whether or not it endangers or kills civilians -- or allied soldiers.
      GIs make excelent gangsters and looters but poor soldiers -- they will kill and maim but will not risk their skin.

      I guess you don't know this if you rely on US media only, but this is public knowledge.
      If you are a Marine and have been at Irak, you know this is true and are ashamed, as many GIs are.

    5. Re:Nuns, more steath than a navy SEAL by cusco · · Score: 1

      Installations of new equipment would require permits, but repair of existing equipment shouldn't require anything more than getting permission to bring a lift on site to reach the cameras. Camera repair is not normally a budgeted item, it falls under maintenance just the same as getting the A/C in the administrative offices repaired. Ten to one the suits put a far higher priority on the latter than on the former.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  41. I lived in the area by supercrisp · · Score: 1

    I lived in that area, and these people were in the news every year around August 5th (the Hiroshima anniversary). They and a lot of others gather to protest outside Y-12. You might look for better coverage in the local press, like the Knoxville News Sentinel. The linked article seems to exaggerate a bit, or at least to overstate the situation. At any rate, these people aren't violent, so far, and aren't likely to be, and I doubt they were actually near any "nuclear material," unless you're talking about the radioactive duck shit or "hot frogs on the loose." As to security and problems, well, oh boy. There are some there. Fires. Leaks and the aforementioned radioactive fauna. And then there are the Billy Bob Bubba approaches to security. And there's stuff that has gone on, at least according to hearsay that is more serious and that doesn't get covered, things like people watching the place and following the shipping trucks around.

    1. Re:I lived in the area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know I've been reading this thread and how these people are there every year. One thought comes to mind, they broke into a federally secured installation that has (arguable) national security implications. They should have a nice lifelong vacation in Leavenworth, to only ever come out in a box. Being a nun (or priest, or anything else) is no license to break the law. The church should be disciplining this nun on its own as well.

      Guard should have shot them, the habit could just be a disguise, they had backpacks that may have contained explosives, and it might just discourage the next group of idiots. The "peaceful" protestors climbing/cutting your fence today may just be the armed attackers (or decoys for them) that were really testing your security tomorrow.

  42. Sneaker 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a movie script involving Robert Redford, Syney Poiter and Anne Hathaway

  43. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pakistan gets droned because their pile of Uranium is insecure?

  44. Texas nuke ratted out the hacker compliance guy by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Friend of a friend was a hacker who got that dream job: Security compliance at the Texas nuclear plants.

    After he:
    1) Fooled them into letting him in by carrying a box and asking them to hold the door.
    2) Punched into a secure room by going through two sheets of sheetrock.
    3) Punched into a "steel clad" area by showing the "steel" was easily cut with a hacksaw.
    4) climbed out of the "man trap" within 30 seconds of being "trapped"
    5) fooled employees into giving various passwords and access to secure areas..

    and a half dozen other weaknesses...

    They posted his PICTURE and told employees to be sure to keep an eye out for the security compliance guy.

    They didn't really want to fix the problems.

    Nuke plants are apparently mostly security through obscurity and bluffing.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Texas nuke ratted out the hacker compliance guy by cusco · · Score: 1

      Security at an awful lot of places is exactly that. The one person who can make a 100 percent difference in the level of security is the local site supervisor. We have two customers who both use the same contractor for guard staff. One supervisor runs a very tight ship, and at the other site you'd be better off to hire winos off the street. I'd be surprised if there was a price difference between the two crews. In the end it's the customer holding the security company's feet to the fire to get a competent supervisor on site that makes the difference between a secure facility and one that's not.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:Texas nuke ratted out the hacker compliance guy by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      "2) Punched into a secure room by going through two sheets of sheetrock."

      I've often wondered that myself. I've seen some "secure" steal doors, with complex code locks, and heavy steal frame, and I coulnd't help but wonder, "I bet I should just take a wrecking bar to the wall beside it and bypass the whole mess"... I mean some obvisouly have concrete walls, but others, obvisoiuly do not.

      Also mixed procedures/policies which are not all that hard to figure out. Like elevators that require passcards. During the day of course you can social engineer. However after hours not so much. However during a fire emergency, all the elevators automatically go to the ground floor. So if you want to leave, pull a fire alarm I guess.

  45. Bad Joke by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 0

    So this nun gardener, and house painter walk into a nuclear facility...


    [insert joke here]

  46. On Notice No More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw it on the local news yesterday, in fact, the notice is now a cancellation of their contract. I can tell you, they weren't your five star security contractor.

    1. Re:On Notice No More by PPH · · Score: 1

      Poorly written security procedures:

      Q: If attacked, how many terrorists will we allow to infiltrate?

      A: None.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  47. Not the first time by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    This isn't the first time in recent years this has happened... in 2009, protestors broke into SWFPAC at Naval Base Kitsap... which is where the USN keeps both D5 missiles and their warheads.

  48. Oh - I know this one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sister Act 3: The Gardner Spy ...

    right?

  49. Who hired the contractors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'd blame them

  50. 20 feet away? by PPH · · Score: 0

    How many of those feet consisted of steel and concrete?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  51. Opportunities by Cute+and+Cuddly · · Score: 1

    The way I see it, there are several opportunities here. For starters, there are several jobs that should be advertised soon, also, there should be some contracts to come for security systems design, installation and maintenance. Failing that, I guess some enterprsing people could get into the business of uranium trading.....

  52. On notice huh? by sjames · · Score: 1

    Surely this at least calls for a wag of the finger!

  53. What!?! by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    The US has (from TFA) 300 to 400 metric tons of bomb-grade uranium?!
    That... That is.. I mean. Who let them?!

    *listens to phil collins and sting once more*

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  54. This sounds like a typical "Plowshares" action... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    This type of direct action civil disobedience has been going on since 1980, when the Berrigan brothers and others broke into a GE nuclear weapons plant in Pennsylvania and hammered on warhead nosecones. Dramatized in the excellent film "In the King of Prussia".

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  55. This is why... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

    This is why we're not allowed to have nice things :(

    Nuclear power could be awesome, but human beings struggle to maintain the level of focus required to keep it safe.

  56. Haven't we seen this show before? by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    Seniors breaking into a Nuclear reactor?

    I know it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure that I've seen this show before...

  57. horrible security guards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know what kind of people are hired for security. They are shit. They have annoying personalities. But seeing as how most of society is full of self-righteous assholes with an immense rap sheet, they are the best for getting hired on minimum wage, seeing how no one else wants them. As for the 'bravest' security guard, he was fired to be promoted to a higher level with lower-than-permitted benefits.

  58. Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is more frightening is that they don't know precisely how much weapons grade uranium they have.

  59. WSI Security contract terminated at Y-12 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oak Ridge has terminated the Wackenhut contract for security services at Y-12 on 9/28, four days before the byline of the article, and will assume responsibility for security itself. http://www.y12.doe.gov/news/release.php?id=308

    It looks like this fact got missed by the writer of the article who stated, incorrectly, that "... Wackenhut Services, Inc. in Oak Ridge -- who knowingly allowed the security at Y-12 to fall far below acceptable levels. And yet, neither company has been held accountable in any discernable way."

  60. Nun shall pass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nun shall pass!

  61. this is old news by tbonefrog · · Score: 1

    this actually happened on July 28, as may have been noticed by others.

    these guards are not public employees as some seem to be trying to assert.

    as someone who lives near enough to Y-12 to be incinerated if anyone has a bad day out there, I am afraid these contractors would turn tail and run in the face of a real attack. The only reason there are not highly trained and motivated Marines guarding the place instead of the fat, old, lazy wighams is a long standing desire by DOE to do its own thing independently of DOD. I for one would be very happy if DOE started its own elite guard school, or farmed it out to the military, and got rid of the hessians.

    with a private contractor motivated by money rather than patriotism you always have to wonder how cheaply the security force could be bought off, and the whole cookie jar ripped off or destroyed, leaving us with no cookies at all or having to make the unfortunately-worded request 'please send back our nuclear warheads as quickly as possible'.

    although i doubt it i hope the cookie jar is really a honeypot designed to lure in the bad guys, while the real nukes are in an abandoned bowling alley somewhere.

  62. 82 Year Old Nun defaced a nuclear building? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'During the early morning hours of July 28, 2012, three individuals (hereinafter referred to as the
    trespassers), gained access to the area surrounding the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials
    Facility (HEUMF) at Y-12 and defaced the building without being interrupted by the security
    measures in place'

    Defaced? What did they bless it?

    captcha: tappers

  63. The Problem With Corporations by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    The nature of public security requires liability for failure. The reason the corporate legal structure exits is to diminish liability. As long as grasping shareholders can wash their hands while lining their pockets providing an inferior service through corrupt minions, many corporations will. The defence industry is another case in point.

  64. Straw man by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    The punchline will be when the nun is excommunicated for not breaking into an abortion clinic instead, being more anti-war than she is pro-life.

    Like the billion+ Catholics who do not break into abortion clinics? How many of those are excommunicated? Zero.
    Please don't attack straw men.

    1. Re:Straw man by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Like the billion+ Catholics who do not break into abortion clinics? How many of those are excommunicated?

      The laity don't get the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a/k/a the Inquisition) coming after them like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious have. The nuns are clearly held to a higher standard when it comes to focusing less on social justice and more on social conservatism.

  65. You can only go so far with security by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    You have to draw the line somewhere. Just like we design a nuclear facility to survive certain level earthquakes, but not a magnitude 9, the same can be said for security. If the nun had been 70 even 75 years old, they would have been able to stop her, but 82? That's asking too much.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  66. 'please send back our nuclear warheads...' by Dareth · · Score: 1

    'please send back our nuclear warheads as quickly as possible'.

    I know a guy who could handle this in 24 hours, or less.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  67. I didn't get the punchline by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    "A nun, a gardener, and a housepainter" walk into a nuclear facility.

    Yeees... and what's the rest of the joke?

  68. Best for the job by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Speaking as a former U.S. Marine *and* as a current contractor working in and around nuclear power facilities, I sincerely hope you're just joking. The idea that you consider Marines "trigger happy" is highly offensive.

    I was just joking. The completely ridiculous statement about paying taxes to buy 'state of the fucking art tools for committing mass murder in the most efficient way possible' should have been a tip off.

    The marines are tough, well disciplined troops who are really good at what they do. I said 'marines', and not army (typical for national defense installations), air force (since they control most of the delivery platforms), or national guard (The locals for the area) is because if you tell a marine to kill ANYONE who get within 100 years of the nuke fuel, he will do his job and he will do it well.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Best for the job by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      missed this in your reply...I wanted to comment on it:

      ing at stuff. You can be quick to shoot and more likely than not you'll make the evening news killing some teens playing a prank. Cue the pacifists, the anti-nuke protesters, the anti-military groups, and every other bleeding heart group out there for a PR debacle in progress. Or you don't shoot on sight and you end up with nuns, gardeners, and what-have-you painting bible verses on your walls. Personally, I'd rather have a red face for the activists showing off than have to live with killing civilians by mistake.

      You have a tough job, I empathize. BUT, even being left leaning type myself, I want you to shoot and kill anyone who crosses the fences.

      See, I understand that most people who you encounter are harmless, but you cannot, we cannot take that risk as a society. Nuclear weapon grade fuel is dangerous stuff, and it cannot fall into the wrong hands, period. If your security teams don't shoot to kill, but ask questions first, what happens when (not if, because it is going to happen - eventually given enough time) a hostile group attempts to enter the facility? It might make the difference between holding the place or not.

      There will probably be some civilian casualties, but that is a cost we have to pay as a society to keep these weapons secure. We owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world to be responsible custodians of this power. And if that is a price that is too high to pay, then perhaps we need to evaluate poses sing these weapons in the first place.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  69. Godwin already? by phasmatid · · Score: 1

    Hitler was a housepainter...

  70. Re:They were searching for ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    I blame Apple maps.

    I know, dead horse is dead.

    That is no reason not to flog it. I want to see bone showing before you put the whip down. Get to it!

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  71. Hyperbole, flamebait by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    The laity don't get the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a/k/a the Inquisition)

    Hyperbole, flamebait. The Inquisition practiced violence. The Congregatipon for the Doctrine of Faith only affirms what is Catholic teaching and what is not. In extreme cases, they may move a heretic bishop from his see - this is immensely different from what the Inquisition did.
    And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.
    In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues. John Paul II opposed the Iraq War. The clergy is only "conservative" on the right to life and family values.
    Saying that the Church clergy are conservatives is an outright fabrication.

    coming after them like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious have. The nuns are clearly held to a higher standard when it comes to focusing less on social justice and more on social conservatism.

    The Church is not asking the LCWR to "focus less on social justice"; the Church is only asking them to be more Catholic - respect the importance of the Eucharist, stop absorbing New Age beliefs, stop moving "beyond Jesus" (their words)- and that they _also_ start defending integral Church teaching. Oh, and they should also stop publishing books that defend sexual chaos.
    They don't have to diminish they anti-poverty actions one bit.

    1. Re:Hyperbole, flamebait by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.

      Only for a very narrow definition of "undisturbed." Why go through the effort of enforcement en masse when you can make an example of a relative few? And there is more than one way to force someone out of an organization than take official action.

      In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues.

      War, capital punishment, poverty: occasional letters.
      Homosexuality, abortion, contraception: months-long, well-funded, nationwide lobbying campaigns.

      I guess they really are the same!

      John Paul II opposed the Iraq War.

      Nobody was ever denied communion for a war vote.

      The Church is not asking the LCWR to "focus less on social justice"

      They're not "asking" anything; they're sending in bishops to tell them what to do.

      stop moving "beyond Jesus" (their words)

      Their actions suggest they take greater issue with the "beyond the Church" portion of that line.

    2. Re:Hyperbole, flamebait by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.

      Only for a very narrow definition of "undisturbed."

      The definition of "undisturbed" here is "attacks the Faith and no authority complains".

      And there is more than one way to force someone out of an organization than take official action.

      Be specific.

      In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues.

      War, capital punishment, poverty: occasional letters.
      Homosexuality, abortion, contraception: months-long, well-funded, nationwide lobbying campaigns.

      1) Because the government is trying to force the Church to pay for abortifacent devices.
      2) Because the right to life and family values are part of the deposit of Faith, while those other issues are prudential judgments.

      Nobody was ever denied communion for a war vote.

      Again, learn what is a prudential judgment.
      And it is extremely rare for a pro-abortion politician to be denied communion.

      They're not "asking" anything; they're sending in bishops to tell them what to do.

      The bishops have done nothing so far. And considering the extreme leniency that the Church extends to even worse heretics (such as the Latin American Liberation Theologians who defend Marxist oppression and political murder), I think the Church will be gentle.

      And the Church is absolutely right to do this. Claiming to be a Catholic while attacking the Faith is simply dishonest.

      I assure you: if the spokesperson of Greenpeace started defending mass deforestation, he would lose this post.

  72. I have heard it before, but it was in a bar. by O'Nazareth · · Score: 1

    "A nun, a gardener, and a housepainter cut through three security fences [...]" What was the punchline?