Los Alamos Security Infiltrated By Reporter 430
morcheeba writes "Wired reported Noah Shachtman gives a first-hand account of his entry into a high-security area at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Yes, there are pictures. It seems that the birthplace of the atom bomb is being guarded by string, backed up by guards with empty holsters. There's a little more info on Noah's Defense Tech website."
Borders (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Borders (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Borders (Score:3, Funny)
Shouldn't it be more like
"Welcome to Black Mesa research facility..."
Hi Gordon!
Re:Borders (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, this reporter took a glorified hiking tour of the region, but missed most of the beautiful landscape of the area.
Re:Borders (Score:3, Informative)
In October 2000 Mock terrorists gained control of sensitive nuclear material, which, if detonated, would have endangered significant parts of sevral states including New Mexico and Colorado. In an earlier test at the same lab an army special forces team used a household garden cart to haul away enough weapons-graded uranium to build sevral nuclear weapons. Feeling secure?
A different site (incase you are curious) on the Rocky Flat site near Denver, Navy SEALs cut a hole in a chain-link fence as they excaped with enough plutonium for sevral nuclear bombs.
The scary part about this is that ALL sites were told a security exercise would come.
The Author says these are not B.S. and were reported in the Chicago Tribune
Trespassing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trespassing (Score:2)
Re:Trespassing (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think he'll see jailtime. At most he will get a suspended sentence. Otherwise, other journalist will raise hell.
Re:Trespassing (Score:2)
you know, usa didn't rank that well on the free press ranking of reporters without borders.
Re:Trespassing (Score:4, Informative)
The report was heavily biased BTW, for Political Reasons.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, mostly because the Reporters without Borders people think that the press should be above the law. To quote the report:
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
Why some people think that reporters should be able to disregard the law is beyond me.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Interesting)
Offtopic (was: Re:Trespassing) (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair to the US press, though, it should be mentioned that the US's peculiar geographical and cultural isolation, along with the simple fact that it's the dominant economy and, er, culture in the world, conspire to create milleau where information from outside the nation is not as relevant to people's lives as it is for other people elsewhere.
Now, I think it's a lot more relevant than most Americans do; but my point is that, even so, it's not as relevant to us as it is to most other people.
I am very internationalist in outlook, and I'm also skeptical by nature and was taught as a child not to trust any particular information source exclusively. I don't think the US media is as bad as many other people think it is, but it's definitely got its biases and its blind-spots, and I prefer to supplement what I know from non-US sources.
Americans are not xenophobic. I strongly believe that Americans are actually less xenophobic than many other nationalities are. We're actually a lot more friendly and open-minded than many people around the world think we are. I know this because I've known a considerable number of foreigners that have come to the US and have been surprised to find that their stereotypes were mostly false (but still partly true).
However, even if Americans aren't really that xenophpbic, they are quite willfully ignorant and indifferent. I'm frequently one of the few Americans that ever bother to ask my foreign friends about their home countries and their lives there and whatnot. Most people just seem to not care. Furthermore, I recall vividly one startling conversation I had with a very conservative friend. We were talking about foreign affairs and my general high level of knowledge about the world outside the US, and that I think that it's important that US leaders understand that we live in a globalized world and understand what that really means. And his reponse? "That's why I would never vote for you for President." My outward-looking visage was seen by him to be a bad thing.
That's especially interesting coming from a conservative--given that the Republicans are supposedly the foreign policy people and the Democracts are supposedly the domestic policy people. But, with this current administration, we can see just how "adept" at foreign policy conservatives can really be. Regardless of whether or not an Iraq war is justified, Bush's diplomacy has been a complete disaster.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
This one actually is bad. Journalism is about getting the truth, and the truth is often stifled by threats to the people who have it. By keeping sources secret, the journalists help the truth to get out while protecting those involved.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok... let's say I'm a reporter. I get a call from a Son-of-Sam-like serial killer or a drug kingpin. Since many serial killers do it to make headlines, he wants an interview. Being a reporter and also wanting to make headlines, I accept. The cops read the interview and want to know everything about the guy. I refuse to tell them.
Please explain to me how I am not both legally and morally responsible for my actions? These people will go off and kill in the future and I did nothing to stop them.
There's a difference between reporting something that's politically sensitive and being irresponsible. When Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson advocated strong freedom of the press over 200 years ago, they had the former in mind. Reporters are supposed to use the truth to enlighten and protect people. Unfortunately, many reporters aren't after the truth these days; they're after the big stories and the prestige they bring. This is absolutely NOT in the spirit of the law.
Re:Trespassing (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the theory is that if you turn in your sources, then no future serial killer would ever trust a reporter again. Society is better served by letting this serial killer walk away with only his "on the record" possibly giving away his identity; hopefully the next one will also talk to a reporter but be stupid enough to give up their home address, telephone number, etc.
I'm not saying that I think the idea is good or bad, but that's my understanding of the proponents' position.
For a different example, suppose a person visited a prostitute who had a few things to say about a local politician's drug habit. The public might want to know that their governor is a heroin addict, but unless that person is reasonably sure that their identity is safe, they probably won't be too eager to tell the world that they were hanging out with hookers.
I think that the "sanctity of sources" doctrine is meant to cover the latter example more than the "unnamed serial killer" possibility.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
They do, but who would report it?
Here [triggur.org] is a tour of a 'top secret' nuclear missile silo from some people with too much time on their hands.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
That was great. What I was waiting for, though was:
You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
For the second, do you know how much publicity would come of trying to prosecute a reporter for reporting the truth? This story will fade away into the background in a day or two if they just ignore it, or release a noncommittal statement. A few heads will quietly roll among the security staff and that will be it.
If they try to prosecute it becomes a story of how an incompetent government is incapable of protecting any nation secrets while AT THE SAME TIME trying to impinge on the Freedom of the Press clause in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights will never get amended because the freaks on the Left would rather die than see freedom of speech/assembly/the press impinged upon, and the freaks on the Right would rather die than see the Right to Bear Arms/Freedom of Religion touched.
On top of all this, this country's leaders are cravenly attached to opinion polls, and opnion polls are VERY strongly influenced by the press, which means that ANY government official is going to be VERY careful before trying to stick it to a member of the press.
Heh. Not exactly the short answer.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Informative)
Watch. He will be prosecuted, and any journalists that try to make a fuss about it will be shown the secure facilities and then be reminded that trying to break into a government facility is a bad idea, regardless. The reporter will be shown to be the fool that he is.
Re:Trespassing (Score:3, Interesting)
He was foolish because he could have gotten himself shot, and he will probably find himself being prosecuted for it. He was obnoxiously foolish because he didn't prove anything of any real consequence. It was a stunt. That's bad journalism. It's probably more self-aggrandizement than anything else.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a page describing LANL, and includes a map [globalsecurity.org]. Notice the scale of the map and how huge an area LANL covers. Notice that TA-33 is one of the most remote facilities.
And here is a pdf in two parts (part one [atomictraveler.com] and part two [atomictraveler.com]) that describes every tech area, and includes maps. The description and map of TA-33 is in part one.
Looking at the detail of the area of TA-33 near Highway 4 (because there's a whole bunch of TA-33 away from the highway!), I see dozens of buildings. Clearly, the writer couldn't have approached either of the two buildings that are designated as being in the "hazard category" because they are well within the perimeter of TA-33 and along the main roadway that serves the cluster of buildings at that northern portion of TA-33. He tries to make it sound as if the whole of TA-33--a huge area covering a range of terrain--is or should be guarded with high-level perimeter security and that, once he crossed the perimeter into TA-33, he was "in". But this is just silly. Buildings within technical areas have their own security, and the most senstitive buildings have the most intense security. He walked up to a "silver building" that was near the roadway. Big deal! That means nothing.
You and all the other people here who don't know anything about LANL are being misled by this writer who is preying upon your preconceived ideas about what such an installation is like. LANL is not like what most people imagine. There are lower and higher level security areas. There are areas that are essentially completely insecure. It covers a huge amount of territory, in some cases seemingly intermingled with the town.
I have nothing but contempt for this writer because he took a stupid risk for a trivial payoff. If he believed that the labs were insecure in this way, then he should have researched what the most sensitive buildings were, and attempted to enter them. As it is, his account reads like someone who was driving around, saw that the fence ended, and decided to snoop in the name of journalism. Then, afterwards, he contacted some "sources" and used their claim that TA-33 involved "black-op" stuff to make it seem like the one little portion of it he tresspassed upon was itself important.
He doesn't provide a map, doesn't provide a description of TA-33, doesn't tell you how much area TA-33 covers, doesn't tell you how many different buildings there are. He provides no context from which the ignorant reader can evaluate his claims of discovering a serious security lapse. He does, however, through insinuation and omission, strongly imply that he's done something extraordinary. But he hasn't.
Breaking the law in this manner should be punished regardless. Nevertheless, I'd be willing to applaud his efforts and courage if he was actually doing something worthwhile and noble. Instead, he's grandstanding and being stupid about it, to boot. He deserves to be thrown in jail just for being such a pathetic example of a journalist.
Re:Trespassing (Score:3, Interesting)
No Criminal Intent (Score:5, Insightful)
Walking across someone's lawn is not criminal. Reporters trespass on government property in order to cause embarrassment; and their documentation and disclosure of their actions proves this.
We would be in a world of shit if journalists were prevented from embarrassing our government.
Re:No Criminal Intent (Score:2)
Re:No Criminal Intent (Score:3, Interesting)
-Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246,250
Re:No Criminal Intent (Score:5, Informative)
For example, you kill someone - a criminal act. If it is shown that you didn't intend to kill them (for example, that your brakes failed), you have no criminal intent.
Some types of crimes require intent, others don't. So, while you won't be convicted of murder i n the above case, if it is shown that you were aware the brakes were defective and that you neglected to do anything about it, you will probably be convicted of manslaughter. :-(
Re:No Criminal Intent (Score:3, Interesting)
You can walk across somebody's unfenced lawn.
But as you cross barriers, be they physical (fences) or symbolic (no trespassing signs) you have a far harder time defending your presence there regardless of your intent.
As the logical extreme for residences, if you're in my bedroom at 2 AM I don't give a damn what your "intent" is - at best you're going to spend the rest of the night in jail for "entry" (which is one step up from trespass). At worst you'll be dead and I'll have the affirmative defense of the local "make my day" law. (I don't have the right to kill you in cold blood, but the onus of burden is shifted onto the prosecution to prove that I could not have been in reasonable fear of my life to discover a stranger in my bedroom at 2AM.)
I haven't read the article to see what signs they have at Los Alamos, but at the nearby missile silos the fence is clearly marked both "no trespassing" and "use of lethal force authorized." You can't cross a sign like that and then claim that the lack of criminal intent means that everything is cool....
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
A precedent was established quite a few years ago when they failed to convict a well known reporter. Whenever witnesses went down the lineup, they were never able to positively I.D. Mr. Kent because he kept taking his glasses off.
Not a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
"We didn't fence all 43 square miles," said lab spokeswoman Nancy Ambrosiano. "But if you're near an area that matters, you can't get in."
He didn't find anything important, he went into a historical building. It's not as if he was able to go hug a nuke, he was able to get into a old run down facility.
Great, I can also sneak into any old abandoned warehouse, perhaps one that was really important a few years ago.. but it's still not ground breaking. If it was important, I'm sure this bumbling reporter wouldn't have stumbled into the place.
Sigh... (Score:3, Funny)
> It's not as if he was able to go hug a nuke
We've gone from nuke huggers to tree huggers and now back to nuke huggers, in only two generations.
I wonder if I could get rich selling teddy nukes to make kids sleep better at night.
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, all that said. Security for employees at those facilities can many times be pretty lax.
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt this guy got near anything of importance.
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to see an investigation by someone not under lab management. Once that's completed, if they don't find that security was crap, I'll feel better about it. Until then, it seems to be that the healthy attitude is one of caution.
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Funny)
Actual nukes are kept in compounds surrounded by two 16ft razor wire chain link fences under constant watch by guards in watch towers and security cameras. I've always wondered if the space between those fences was mined...
Re:Not a big deal to us, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Do you consider Pakistan to be a scientific/technical powerhouse? South Africa built a couple of bombs to prove they could, and then promptly became the only country to acquire the capacity and then destroy it.
The problem isn't that it's that enormously hard to do, it's that it's pretty hard to do in secret. The whole international weapons control works pretty well. Look at Iraq.
Re:Not a big deal to us, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Gordon Freeman? (Score:3, Funny)
no gordon.... (Score:3, Funny)
good thing he brought a handy crowbar.....
Evolution in Action (Score:5, Funny)
There is absolutely nothing to prevent anyone from just walking in and, *sniffle*, exploring and *wheeze*, doing whatever they *cough, hack, choke*, gawddamn, I feel like crap today. Better go have a lie down before I write the rest of this article. *glurgle*
Re:Evolution in Action (Score:2, Funny)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Evolution in Action (Score:3, Informative)
And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
All we need is a bunch of UN arms inspectors touring the US looking for nukes in the presidential palaces and such security issues will soon be fixed!
Re:And in other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, if Baghdad's purported subway system -- which was never used for subways but is instead used to hustle WMDs from one part of the city to the other, avoiding all the Corona-eyes-in-the-sky-satellites and all weapons inspectors -- is enough to stymie the *entire globe*, then shouldn't we be taking lessons from these assholes about how to secure our ops and nukes from a bunch of understaffed, underpaid terrorist cells who live eight-to-a-room in Ma McChesney's Motel Six off Insterstate 80?
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, do you really think there aren't any guards on that base that have real weapons?
Canadian Security (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently, security at Los Alamos is run by the same folks who allowed the knife-weilding lunatic [cnn.com] break into Prime Minister Chretien's home and threaten his wife for half an hour.
Re:Canadian Security (Score:3, Informative)
We also had a journalist go and plant a big roung prop with a string sticking out and the word "Bomb" in bold white letters on the PM's summer home's porche...
This is a little unnerving (Score:2)
If the Godless Chinese, or Godless Russians, or heretica Al'Qeada can penetrate Los Alamos and steal vital military secrets, the Pax Americana might be compromised, and the world would become a far harsher place.
Stealing secrets... (Score:3, Funny)
Hell the Chinese and Russians already know this stuff, and Bin Laden was trained by the US.
Its the FRENCH that this stuff is being protected from.
Hm? (Score:2)
Well, that's encouraging. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though, doesn't it seem like there's just one security failure after another at these labs recently? I remember after the Wen Ho Lee "incident" they tightened things up to the point where the scientists were complaining, but apparently that was just a temporary thing.
It seems to me that installations which are especially key deserve much closer attention than they seem to get. Why isn't there a national security force staffed by professionals? They could guard non-military installations which have specific value, like nuclear plants, dams and national labs.
This is just another example of how nothing's changed since 9-11 except our willingness to give away our rights to those who consider themselves our masters [cnn.com]. It's getting depressing to watch as we (the US) waste our time and attention on imaginary or, at best, overinflated threats [cia.gov] while doing nothing to focus on our real problems.
Seriously, what are you talking about? (Score:2)
There is.
This is just another example of how nothing's changed since 9-11 except our willingness to give away our rights to those who consider themselves our masters.
What right exactly was given up by anybody in this particular case?
It's getting depressing to watch as we (the US) waste our time and attention on imaginary or, at best, overinflated threats [cia.gov] while doing nothing to focus on our real problems.
This is where you lose me. If you dont think that terrorists are a "Real Problem" I'd like to know what is, or I can give you a tour of Ground Zero.
Of course visual security is lax..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course visual security is lax..... (Score:2)
My favorite part... (Score:5, Funny)
It turns out that my basement is actually a top-secret area for Los Alamos National Labs too. My sources from the lab told me so.
See (Score:5, Funny)
Not as easy as it looks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not as easy as it looks (Score:2)
Not Exactly News... (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgive me, but having grown up in Los Alamos, I could have told ya that. Sheesh. Kids in Los Alamos have been a pest for LANLites for years. The security isn't the best for many areas.
Additionally, a few years ago, a peace activitist walked into the lobby of the plutonium processing plant (iirc) to pray for peace. This was in a supposed Cross-This-Line-and-We-Shoot-to-Kill area. Funny that. He certainly didn't get riddled. Good thing he didn't carry, say, a whole lot of plastic explosives with the intent of being a suicide bomber, huh?
Finally, even during the Cold War, one of the guys that worked in a sensitive area wore a hat with a KGB symbol on it. He wore it walking in and out as a joke with his coworkers. They, the guards, never even inquired about it. While it was a joke, and the guards might have gotten in on it, a large part of what made it funny was that the guards never even batted an eye.
Re:Not Exactly News... (Score:3, Funny)
so the gaurds are supposed to be the fashion police?
jeez it was just a hat. do you think he should be stopped for wearing "Hammer and sickle" underwear?
now if he was talking into his sleeve in russian while hiding in a phone booth, you mightr have something.
the only way the hat would be of interest would be if he walked into a sensitive area and had a coworker take a picture.
Mission Ineptitude (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article, it turns out this boob managed to infiltrate a "Top-Secret" storage shed for illicit camping gear. There are probably thousands of facilities around the country that house classified facilities that you could still walk into the lobby of and claim to have infiltrated. You can drive onto many military bases around the country, untill you get to the defenses that protect anything important. Shachtman is trully a l33t j00rnul15t.
green peace (Score:2, Funny)
Re:green peace (Score:3, Funny)
Because the French are dumb enough to mistake it for a campaign poster and vote for him...
Or so it would seem from their recent behaviour regarding Saddam.
He left out the part (Score:2)
working in a factory with no salary is better than working at the cracker factory.
UC security in action (Score:2)
Nothing new (Score:2)
Three totally incongruent observations. . . (Score:2)
2. All Right!!! Now we get even more paranoid delusional security where none has been needed before. Los Alamos? The grand daddy of research facilities infiltrated by a measly reporter? Wow! What a great way to sell fear and Big Brother's gun-toting orcs to every two-bit research outpost in the entire nation! Cool! Next thing we'll see is scientists required to wear hand guns in the cockpit-er, lab.
3. What is an 'Orange Alert' anyway? What color comes next? At what tint and shade should I drop my replicated food dish and dash to my battle station? (The nation not programmed? Please.)
-Fantastic Lad
Nothing new to see here... (Score:5, Interesting)
So a guy with a camera hops a fense in the middle of a radioactive desert, and snaps a few pics of some ominous-looking signs near said fence. Big friggin' deal. Just like those photos of Area 51. Who cares? Did he try to go any deeper? Has he asked or thought about why that section was so accessible?
I used to work in a large engine manufacturing plant, that was built during WWII. The sprawl was almost incomprhensible, and even more so when you realized there were caverns underneath the entire complex. Not much went on down there in the late 90's, and most of it was unlit.. nobody really had any business going thru there. Nonetheless, I wandered around one day, and found a room full of dusty forgotten file cabinets, filled with, among other things, the full and complete HR records of people who had worked for the comapny and since died, long before I was even born. Birthdates, positions held, SSNs, all that. Another cabinet had some old drawings, and who knows what else I could have found. Some would see this was a huge deal (I guess leaving all sorts of personnel records around IS pretty stupid), but come on!
One floor above, and barely 100 yards away was a maximum-security area for prototype testing and research. I only got to go back there with escorts ranking up with the plant manager.
Yeah, I probably would have gotten in deep doodoo if I'd been caught snooping in the caverns, but the real areas of interest were protected. I'm sure that goes on in Los Alamos and evereywhere else. At least I HOPE so!
Big Deal! (Score:3, Informative)
Woopdi Do (Score:3, Informative)
If this is how... (Score:2)
But... back to what I was saying.
If this is how the US protects nuclear secrets, what the hell are they protecting at Area 51? I guess top secret aeroplane designs deserve higher protection then nuclear weapon facilities.
Just something to think about. ^_^
Re:If this is how... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If this is how... (Score:5, Insightful)
The art of security is not to completely prevent someone from seeing something. That's impossible. Rather, you want to slow them down. ie. encryption that takes 100s of years. A safe that would take a long time to burn through or test all the combinations (thick walls, long combination). The goal is to slow them down, not completely stop them. Since stopping them is near impossible. (Unless you just kill them.)
This is nothing new... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was impressed untill I read this... (Score:2)
Well he shouldn't have tried to cut the barb wire with the back of his leg! Friggin idiot...
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Security though obscurity (Score:2, Interesting)
It was insecure even during WWII (Score:5, Informative)
I remember an anecdote (in Richard Feynman's Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, I think) that Los Alamos's security was pretty lax even during the Manhattan Project. Apparently there were a few places in the gate where local Indians were occasionally let through by the scientists and workers to watch movies and hang out.
If I'm not mistaken, Los Alamos is also where Feynman got his reputation for lockpicking, since he taught himself how to break into the safes where classified documents were stored and prove to the higher-ups that security wasn't as tight as they'd wanted to believe.
Re:It was insecure even during WWII (Score:3, Funny)
The point. (Score:5, Interesting)
The government is making this huge deal out of how security conscious they are right now. That being the case, they should be a bit more careful about random people walking around their supposedly secure facility.
No he didn't get inside any occupied building, but I'm sure there is a decent amount of stuff lying around down there that the everyday joe shouldn't have access to. Not to mention the damage a decent sized bomb could do, even nearby. Both ANFO (Here) [tisi.go.th] and Nitroglycerine are synthesizable from relatively common ingredients. A quick moving truck with a hefty payload could do massive damage. If _I_ can think of this crap THEY should damn well be thinking about it.
Oh yea, they'll never prosecute this guy. Freedom of the Press, remember? It applies to more than just the right to print papers. If they tried to prosecute him, they'd just draw more bad press.
(Heres the link in case my HTML is screwy: http://www.tisi.go.th/notif_th/fulltext/t00_370.pd f)
Happens in Virginia all the time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact #1: 80% of all militay base property is landscaping and wildlife areas. The other 10% is protected to the level of needed security.
Fact #2: Without having insider knowledge of where on a military installation sensitive material is located you don't have a chance of hell of finding it wandering around - Much less penetrating any real security unimpeded.
Fact #3: Security doen't mean 100% access control. It merely means protecting assets to the degree needed to make it tough for the bad guys.
Re:Happens in Virginia all the time... (Score:5, Funny)
And I think it's the remaining 10% that we need to worry about
From a LANL worker.... (Score:3, Insightful)
of them used for anything interesting.
Regardless of the reporter's picture of the guard without the gun, the gaurds DO ave guns...lots of them. I've looked in my rearview mirror many times to find a Hummer with a roof mounted M-60 behind me. Any other labbies have something to add?
I did the same thing (Score:3, Interesting)
My uncle worked there. We cruised through the security gate in his CJ with Cherry Bombs roaring and I didn't see a sole at the gate. Inside I was climbing around on the experiments peeping in the portholes with no ID tag or anything. There was one experiment that was studying plasma torroids for use (and I'm not making this up) as space propulsion or for car bumper coating. I was genuinely curious so I was asking questions about their setup and stuff. They just seemed a little annoyed and busy but not alarmed or anything.
My uncle was going through his toolbox, saying, "Here - want a wrench? How 'bout this cordless soldering iron?", and I'm like, "No thanks... don't want my only trip to Los Alamos to finish with theft of government property." Pretty cool experience, all-in-all. Glad I went before things changed.
It reminds me... (Score:5, Funny)
Then another commercial in the next break comes on. 'Watch as we show you a nuclear reactor, closer to your home than you probably think!' And it showed a picture of the nuclear engineering building at the local university. I burst into laughter. That reactor was hardly 'secret', it is a well advertised reactor, a very puny one. I toured it about 4 years ago....
Then the final commercial.... 'we'll show you our hidden camera investigation where our undercover reporter infiltrates security and gets into the reactor room!' And it showed a picture of something I could understand a layman mistaking for the reactor, but it certainly was not the reactor.
During the broadcast they made a big point of how they were able to see labs and classrooms, and then unveiled their 'killer' footage. The camera man, obviously excited, walks all around for a long time taking every possible shot he can of what *he* thought was a reactor, but it was just a cooling device not related to the reactor at all. About five minutes after the broadcast, they announce a correction, that they had learned that it wasn't a reactor, and that the place housing the reactor wasn't accessible, but still the thought this stuff was dangerous in the hands of terrorists because it said 'high voltage...'
The news always botches this stuff up. How many times have you seen news reports on a technology you are intimately familiar with and laughed your ass off at the inaccuracies?
double standard (Score:3, Insightful)
call me crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like he was disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
This same author also wrote an article [wired.com] about the shabby conditions at one of the unclassified Los Alamos sites. It's interesting that the physicist that he was interviewing did not complain about the working conditions. So why did the author make a big deal about it?
After reading both articles, my impression is that the author was expecting the entire Los Alamos complex to be some type of high tech super-secure facility, and when his expectations were not met he decided to write a couple articles blasting the place.
Quality journalism? I think not.
Not much different than most mil bases (Score:5, Informative)
One person walking around and getting into an office building is almost certainly no problem (depending on the alert level).
But to get to the 'good stuff' you have to go through an incredible number of steps. And there is *no way* to access anything really sensitive without quite a few people knowing and challenging you.
Exaggerated (Score:5, Informative)
This is much ado about nothing.
Don't get me wrong. There is plenty to criticize about security at Los Alamos. But the article is akin to bragging that you got into the "johnny on the spot" outhouse in an used section under construction on the outskirts of a military base.
I will admit that they ought to be more secure about letting people *out* of facilities though. I used to work late and the guards left at 6 and there was only a unidirectional turnstile "guarding" the place. While there were other measures to retain building security, I could have walked out with lots of stuff had I wanted to. If I wanted to get in at night I'd just call the Pro Force and they'd let me into the building, no questions asked, so long as I had a security badge.
However lets also be honest. Most of the stuff labelled "top secret" really isn't terribly significant. The stuff that is important has a *lot* more security on it. For instance our really important servers and stuff were in sealed rooms and then inside rather large safes in those rooms. And only a few people had the passwords. We had all sorts of restrictions for cable length to avoid hacking via E&M signals. We had pretty amazing encryption devices. And the really important areas had amazing security. The weakest link, as always, tends to be the employees and not these sorts of things.
There are problems, but what this story discusses aren't they.
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Interesting)
This means you'd be shot on sight.
This guy didnt go anywhere important. Just a trumped up fluff-piece on how the government needs to beef up security.
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Worthless. (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, he completely misrepresents what the Lab facilities are like. LANL is not one big, monolithic facility sitting on a single plot of land. It's got a main area, right in town (the "front gate" he refers to), and then lots of little facilities scattered all over the area. They are individually secured.
Getting in the "front gate" is no big deal because, you know, visitors are allowed in. (Unlike Sandia in Albuquerque, which is much harder to get into. But it's a single contiguous site situated within an Air Force base.)
The one facility that easily the most sensitive is the plutonium refinement facility--yes, LANL still has a reactor and refines and stores some plutonium. That area is surrounded by several staggered perimeter fences, with mines between them, dogs, guards, and "helicopter landing denial cables" strung all over the area, for good measure.
Then, if you've ever been in any of the facilities, you'll find that there are armed guards stationed at entraces to sensitive areas within buildings. When I was in high school, and went on a tour of LANL as part of its "High School Senior Science Day", a friend of mine innocently walked down a corridor to a vending machine and was immediately physically hoisted in the air and carried back to the rest of the group by two armed guards.
Furthermore, constantly patrolling the area of the Lab, including parts of town and neighboring areas that border the labs, are MPs in Jeeps with M-16s prominently displayed.
LANL is a sprawling facility built upon finger-like mesas and in deep canyons spread over a huge area. LANL-owned land is fenced off, but for these remote facilities--like those along NM 4--are individually secured. And not all facilities are equal. Some are not that sensitive. There are a lot of relatively insecure facilities at LANL, because they do a lot more research than just weapons research. I had numerous friends who did coop work there while they were in college, and only one of them actually needed a security clearance to do her work.
LANL is, more than Livermore, and certainly more than Sandia and Oak Ridge, a very "civilian-esque" lab. They do weapons design work there, and those areas, along with the plutonium facility, you can be sure are heavily secured.
Finally, this author was an idiot. He was lucky that he tried to approach a facility that apparently isn't that sensitive. He's lucky he didn't get shot. They will shoot you. And you can bet that there will be criminal charges filed against him for this. Imbecile.
Re:Worthless. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you *look* like you belong there, getting in isn't a problem.
This is actually true. I've spent some time working in secure military facilities in the UK, and on my first few days I wondered around looking lost. I was regularly challenged, and had to show my badge (which I was wearing in a visible location anyway). In places like this you are required to challenge anyone who is not displaying their pass openly, and can by in trouble if you fail to do so.
A few weeks later I went for to the canteen in another part of the site, then to the personnel office, in another part of the site, then to a meeting in a third part of the site. It was a hot day and so I didn't wear my jacket. It was only when I returned to my desk that I saw my security pass, still attached to my jacket.
DISCLAIMER: To get onto that particular site you would have to either climb a 10 foot razor wire fence, or bluff your way past armed guards, but once you were in then you could wander about fairly freely. I didn't go anywhere particularly sensitive without my pass, but I walked past a number of security personnel, and was in ear-shot of a number of people talking about classified projects without being challenged.
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:4, Interesting)