It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Strange Los Alamos Labs Article- A Plea, Some Memory, Some Questions

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I faintly remember a security breach of classified info from Livermore being found and I am guessing that this is the aftermath. It seems an employee of the lab brought home 3 classified memory sticks to work on at home (this sounds strange considering the level of security), she has a young meth addict go wacko in her home, the police are called, some stolen items are found and the memory sticks are also found.

Fast forward to this story, drug charges dropped in exchange for guilty plea on stolen items, treatment and probation, and the attorney for the lab worker still awaiting word on what the lab plans to do with her.

It is probably me, but does anyone else smell something funny about this situation?


Man caught up in lab scandal pleads guilty to property crime

Stone pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property and the state agreed to drop one count each of methamphetamine possession and drug paraphernalia possession, said Assistant District Attorney Amy Lopez-Dooling.

The stolen property that formed the basis for the guilty plea -- a global positioning system and computer disc drive -- did not come from Los Alamos National Laboratory. But the dropped drug charges came about because of the search that turned up three memory sticks that contained classified LANL information, Lopez-Dooling said.



[edit on 8-4-2007 by asala]




posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   
looks like livermore is just trying to keep their classified info from being scanned because it is evidence(guilty plea means quick closure and prompt return of all property without having the memory sticks scanned for contents as evidence)

i'd have to wonder if there was anything compromising on the computer and whether it(the computer) was secure where the employee was doing work at home? the sticks could be easily destroyed if necessary but a stolen computer could be hacked locally or over the net.

security is a joke when we have flash drives ie: thumb drives that come with key rings on them and micro-memory cards the size of your fingernail(very bond-ish lol)



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by howie0
security is a joke when we have flash drives ie: thumb drives that come with key rings on them and micro-memory cards the size of your fingernail(very bond-ish lol)


The problem with security is that no matter how advanced we get technologically-wise it is still dependent on people to be cognizant, at all times, of security issues.

I read the article and I'm not quite sure why the man was charged with stealing the classified information. It says the female employee, an archivist at the labs, brought classified info home to work on; her boyfriend, a meth-head, was there and got a little too high, got a little paranoid and locked himself in a bathroom refusing to come out for police. They took him into custody in the house and charged HIM with a few drug charges (makes sense) and receiving stolen property.

Okay ... if he received the property then who stole it?? Why was the archivist not charged with stealing the property??

I'm thinking the labs need to get a little tighter on their background investigations of their employees. Depending on what information she has access to, the simple fact that she is associating with meth-heads indicate she is not the type of employee who needs to be around seriously confidential information.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
She should never have taken writable media out of a secure facility.

Really, they should not have active USB, Firewire, floppy drives, CD burners or anything else on some of those machines. They ought to choke the access to network attached media writers down to a few points that are more tightly controlled. You ought to have to sign for it each time you stick some sort of writeable media in the writer, and there ought to be a damn good reason you need it to go off-network.

As far as them not keeping tabs on her private life, she had a Q and a sigma 15, but so do a lot of other folks in the area. They prowl the clubs pretty aggressively there but as far as looking in your windows and stuff, that's usually reserved for the physics package guys.


I guess they didn't think about clerks. Clerks are always your weak point. You can beat more out of clerical staff and aides than officers any day.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
Okay ... if he received the property then who stole it?? Why was the archivist not charged

with stealing the property??


That is what makes me think there is more to the story, actually the article itself is

nothing but confusion.

Probably planned that way.....



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Well for one thing, this didn't happen in Livermore. LANL stands for LOS Alamos National Laboratory. Not that it really makes any difference; I thought this was a weired case too. LANL has had many security leaks.

For a really strange LANL case, google Win Ho Lee.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Well for one thing, this didn't happen in Livermore. LANL stands for LOS Alamos National Laboratory.


Oops! thanks for pointing that out, I was reading articles about both sites and erred in the title.

Let me try and get this fixed.....




top topics



 
2

log in

join