Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security IT

Nuclear Training Software Downloaded To Iran 470

Posted by kdawson
from the round-up-the-usual-suspects dept.
SixFactor sends in word of a theft of training software for a nuclear plant. An ex-employee of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, in Arizona, allegedly downloaded training software to his laptop while he was in Iran. The software was downloaded from a Maryland-based contractor to the nuclear plant. It contained information about the Palo Verde facility: control rooms, reactors, and design. It was used to simulate situations for training at the site. Why the ex-engineer downloaded the software is not known. What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Training Software Downloaded To Iran

Comments Filter:
  • Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:07AM (#18837193)
    Got to make sure everyone is scared of the Iranians, so there won't be an outcry when the bombing starts.
    • Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kandenshi (832555) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:10AM (#18837219)
      from TFA:

      Federal authorities have said the incident did not pose a security risk, and there is no evidence the Iranian government was involved. The information contained on the software was not classified or top-secret, APS officials said.

      Well, then I'm not too scared. They did a pretty crummy job of whipping me into a frenzied lust for Iranian blood if they're also telling me that it was just crap that he got ahold of. And that he wasn't neccessarily working for the Iranian government.
      • Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by timeOday (582209) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:35AM (#18837369)
        Speaking of which, did you know in the 1970s the US was actively assisting [blogspot.com] Iran in developing nuclear power, including bringing their nuclear scientists over to train at MIT? Those scientists now form the backbone of Iran's program. Given the stagnation of nuclear power science and technology since then (especially in the US), that knowledge is still very pertinent.

        None of which is to say I'd like Iran to go nuclear, nor do I believe their claim of only being interested in power generation (after watching what happened to their neighbor, there's simply no way Iran could not want that protection).

        • Well, that's really not too hard to believe -- up until 1978, when the current bunch of crackpots took over, Iran was a fairly strong U.S. ally in the region. Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner, but that GE and Westinghouse were working to sell nuclear-power stuff there isn't as untoward as it might sound. It's just like U.S. corporations doing business in China right now. Sure, they may be a bunch of despicable despots, but they're despicable despots allied with us.

          The Iranian Revolution is a little before my time, so I'm not sure exactly what the zeitgeist in the U.S. was when it happened, but it certainly seems like we got caught with our pants down -- I mean, we had all those people in the embassy that got caught, because we didn't pull them out before the shit hit the fan; I don't know if that was just the Carter administration being typically asleep at the switch, or if nobody suspected things were deteriorating that quickly, but in either case, it explains why, a few years previously, nobody was really thinking too hard about selling them crap (particularly not when it would have brought a few billion bucks to the U.S, which at the time was seriously rusting). Plus, anything to keep them on our side instead of going over to the Soviets for their nuclear needs -- it's not as though they would have had (or have had, since) much compunction about selling reactors to anyone with the hard currency to buy them.

          When viewed in the context of the period, the U.S. actions may have been a little shortsighted, but they're not as bald-facedly hypocritical as some people today like to make them seem.

          Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend. In time, I think we're going to look back on the halcyon days of the Cold War with nostalgia, when we had an enemy who was basically rational and we could sit down over a negotiating table and talk to, or pull out a map and point at.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by sumdumass (711423)
            Just to clear the air about Iran, It wasn't a matter of the enemy of the enemy. We have always had some relationship with the area, but the most noticeable interaction was WW1 and the fall of the ottoman empire. The winners took it upon themselves to redistribute the areas based on some old boundaries and each these territories were divided among different allied countries to maintain peace and establish a workable country from the ashes. This was the mandate of the league of nations and cause israel (with
            • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday April 23, 2007 @03:42AM (#18837909)
              Erh... just one correction. The borders drawn in the near east were completely arbitrary. The winners (read: European imperial nations) simply cut lines into the map, not caring about tribal borders or local population. That's one of the reasons why there are ethnic groups (like the Kurds) that are split up by borders running exactly through their lands.

              There was nothing "fixed". Actually that drawing of borders was the beginning of the sabre-rattling in the area. The local population fought alongside the allies in WW1 for their freedom and got another occupying force instead. Wouldn't you kinda hate your "liberators" in that case? We cheated 'em!
              • by sumdumass (711423) on Monday April 23, 2007 @08:54AM (#18839073) Journal
                I was under the impression that there was some historical significance to the borders. Maybe it was just our versions of the significance?

                As for the saber rattling, All the territories but the palistine-jewish conflicted areas were stabilized and return to local control in a relatively quick fashion. I'm not saying there wasn't problems. The history books call them ottman loyalist giving resistances. But the fact is, most of the area was under their own control or government in a fast amount of time.

                I'm gaging this amount of time based around the idea from the empires England carried at the time. Even after they gave India back, there was some 50 years of transfer before India had their own control. Hong-Kong took a bit longer. By WW2, most of the Middle east had formed their own governments and was recognized as a independent country/state by most allied countries. French indo-china took a little longer but France seems to be a tyrant compared to some of the other participants.

                Anyways, the liberated by occupying forces was something that was expected to divide the area enough so they didn't reform the ottoman empire which was a lot of problems to a lot of countries before WW1. They participated in pirating of the oceans and had a great deal to do with the slave trades. The US navy formed it's first marines for overseas deployment because of this. Thomas Jefferson supposedly asked the ambassador to them what gave them the right to pirate ships on the other side of the globe and enslave the workers in them? He replied Allah gave them the right prompting Jefferson to work on getting the US a standing navy and forces to deal with this. When he was president, the marines invaded tripoli and the rest is history. So even America has had some trouble in the past with the ottoman empire durring it's ealry stages of development. It just wasn't a good idea to give them that ability.

                Now if only we had had so much though over germany, we might have avoided WW2 and the world as we know it might be a better place. It would be a different place, most of the arms developed for war and the power current countries seem to hold came from WW2. But there is no guarantee that it would be any better, just different.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Hal_Porter (817932)
            While I'm no great fan of constructive engagement with China, engaging middle eastern despots doesn't seem unreasonable, especially in the context of the cold war. In fact, given that attempting to bring democracy to the region has failed in Iraq and they have a shared enemy in the form of Islamic radicals, I think the US will go back to doing this once Bush has left office.

            And the good people at the UN have decided in the Non Proliferation Treaty that every state has the 'inalienable right' to develop nucl
            • I'm with you on pretty much everything you said. Only thing I'd point out is that India didn't use the NPT in quite the way I think you're suggesting -- they were never a signatory to it in the first place, and thus opted out from any assistance from the west, in return for never promising not to make weapons.

              That was sort of the deal behind the NPT: sign it, agree to no bombs, and we'll help you build a peaceful programme -- just sign on the dotted line and Westinghouse will be there on Monday, basically; the alternative is to not sign, get left out of the nuke-power club, and do what you can on your own, locked out from the rest of the world.

              India basically chose the second path, although because they're good allies with the West, they did end up getting a certain amount of assistance in various indirect forms (and I think in the near future they'll probably be buying Uranium from NPT countries like Australia, even though that ought to be against the rules). So they were never under any formal obligation not to build weapons, and no U.S. or other NPT-country firms can build reactors there as a result.

              I think the era of the NPT is almost to an end. What India showed is that it's possible for a country to develop nukes entirely on its own, without Western assistance. Now that it's happened, the NPT countries are going to be the ones breaking the rules, because with the cat out of the bag, they're just losing money by not being in on the plant-building in non-NPT countries. You can bet that GE and Westinghouse would really like to get in on India's new plants, and they're going to be lobbying pretty hard to do it.
            • by wannabgeek (323414) on Monday April 23, 2007 @03:16AM (#18837807) Journal
              All of which is utterly laughable given the way India, Pakistan and now North Korea and Iran have stayed in the NPT long enough to build up a domestic nuclear industry and then quit just before detonating their first bomb.

              FYI - India never signed the NPT, nor did Pakistan. NPT is a discriminatory agreement by any standard. There were no commitments from the nuclear nations about disarmament but bound the non-nuclear members to commitments that they would always be unarmed.
          • by saforrest (184929) on Monday April 23, 2007 @03:21AM (#18837829) Homepage Journal
            I think we're going to look back on the halcyon days of the Cold War with nostalgia, when we had an enemy who was basically rational and we could sit down over a negotiating table and talk to, or pull out a map and point at.

            I think you're generally being pretty reasonable in your post, but I think with this last bit, particularly "basically rational", you're just buying into the conventional propaganda line.

            Sure, there are no shortage of religious zealots who are raving lunatics. But people like this have always been created by a larger political context of rational political opposition — even the original Zealot [wikipedia.org], from which we get our term for hysterical and unreasoning devotion to a cause, lived at a time when there were a lot of reasons why Jews might not like Romans so much.

            I think the thing that makes the Cold War distinct from the current situation is the level of mutual understanding, at least at the level of leadership. Both sides in the Cold War more or less understood how its opponents' power structures worked and could be manipulated. In the current conflict, partly through willing ignorance that understanding just isn't there to the same degree: I just don't get the sense that most of the American authorities in Iraq could tell you about what distinguishes Shia from Sunni, for instance, or the historical context of the dispute over the Shatt al-Arab.

            The consequence is that the other side acts in "unexpected" ways, which are then described as "irrational".
          • by bm_luethke (253362) <luethkebNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Monday April 23, 2007 @03:59AM (#18837959)
            "Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner, but that GE and Westinghouse were working to sell nuclear-power stuff there isn't as untoward as it might sound."

            The Shah himself wasn't that bad - at least compared to the normal rulers in that region (by our standards he sucked big time). I've never been that angry we supported him, more angry in how our support materialized. Enough to keep him in power with no opposition, but then dropping it at the first opportunity for a radical anti-western violent govt.

            "I don't know if that was just the Carter administration being typically asleep at the switch, or if nobody suspected things were deteriorating that quickly,"

            There is a little bit of all of that. Like most intelligence failures you can not blame it on one point and you can also point to people who "knew" what was going on (whether they actually knew or were just lucky is up to debate - same thing with Iraq's WMD program). Not a big fan of Carter presidency - in fact I think his handling of the hostages was horrid. However, the buildup to it - eh. Reasonable assumption, grossly incorrect. We will most likely never know exactly all the information he had (and the level of verifiability of it) so *really* difficult to answer the level of incompetence on his end.

            "Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend."

            You can not really call it "shortsighted" - that assumes too much. At the time it wasn't just communism or capitalism (depending on your side) but total annihilation due to a nuclear war. In that light the Islamic Fundamentalism we are seeing, while bad, is a candle to the flame - at least at this point. I can not say we necessarily made the wrong decisions, nor can I say we made the correct ones. I will say that though failure was much more extreme I think we also had a MUCH larger percentage chance of success - as one of the saying goes about counting on the fact that the Russian/Americans love their children as much as we do - the people we are currently fighting celebrate death. We hope that enough of them love their children as much as we do and can stop them - otherwise we are screwed regardless of what we do (short of genocide against radical Islam and if it comes to that that we see the difference between radical and non-radical).
          • Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner,

            Shah was a murderous dictator, he was put in place in 1953 when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.

            Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A.
            • by clickclickdrone (964164) on Monday April 23, 2007 @05:48AM (#18838321)
              >when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.
              Partly because he was all for nationalising an oil company largely owned by overseas interests which simply wouldn't do, not with all that profit to be made.
            • Iran Populous (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Khammurabi (962376)

              Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A.

              Actually, the Iranian populace (read: not the people in power) were actually quite favorable to the US until recently (read: George W essentially threatening them with war). Of all the middle eastern nations, Iran's populace were the most favorable to trade with the US. The Iranians were importing US music and quite a bit of other stuff until Ahmadinejad came to power and banned a whole bunch of it.

              The people in power despise the

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by brit74 (831798)
            Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend.

            I hear this kind of statement a lot. People wag their finger at the US and essentially say, "silly Americans - the enemy of your enemy is not your friend". The decision to aid the enemy of your enemy is a tricky one - it ca
          • by Moraelin (679338) on Monday April 23, 2007 @07:07AM (#18838629) Journal
            You know, much as I can enjoy a piece of revisionist bullshit, I just have to rain on your parrade there. There are a ton of countries, Iran included, where the USA didn't just happen to have a friend, but actually installed a puppet dictator. The Shah was only your friend because a bloody CIA coup deposed the democratically elected government and installed him. _Again_. That's all.

            And understanding that, also gives you the key as to why those people hate you now. It's not just some people that inexplicably forgot their old friendships, it's some people who hate you for what you did to them. That pseudo-friendship only lasted as long as the USA-installed puppet lasted. The dictator might have been your faithful puppet friend, but the people ended up hating not only him, but also the foreign power that installed and kept him in power. Gee, big surprise there. And as soon as they managed to free them of him, by brutal revolt, gee, who would have guessed that they're no longer your friends? Completely unexpected surprise that ;)

            And, generally, if we're talking about that period, the USA was bloody active installing and backing dictators left and right. That's champions of democracy at work for ya. Sure preferred a brutal tyrant to an elected government. _Especially_ if that government happened to be left wing or get in the way of western colonial interests.

            It started right after WWII, e.g.,

            - South Korea: got saddled with an inept totalitarian regime, where the "president" hadn't even lived in Korea before. Just because, god forbid, you can't let them maybe vote for a left-wing government. (The current favourite was actually left wing.) Got to give them our version of "democracy" instead.

            - Vietnam: the USA actually prevented them from holding democratic elections and backed an inept dictator instead. Again, out of fear that the left might win.

            And it continued throughout the 20'th century, with some of the most brutal third world dictators installed or helped by the USA. If you happen to be on our side, here, let us teach you how to torture and terrorize dissidents. And god forbid if you happen to _not_ be on our side. Then we'll stage a coup and replace you with some puppet that's on our side. And teach _him_ how to torture and terrorize disidents.

            Gee, I wonder why a lot of people ended up hating the USA. You'd think they'd appreciate the support and training it gave to their dictator's secret police more.
            • by RevMike (632002) <revMike@NosPAM.gmail.com> on Monday April 23, 2007 @08:29AM (#18838925) Journal

              And it continued throughout the 20'th century, with some of the most brutal third world dictators installed or helped by the USA. If you happen to be on our side, here, let us teach you how to torture and terrorize dissidents. And god forbid if you happen to _not_ be on our side. Then we'll stage a coup and replace you with some puppet that's on our side. And teach _him_ how to torture and terrorize disidents.

              You're essentially correct, though I think the tide has turned on that. The US is spending lots of treasure and lots of lots of lives in an attempt to build real democratic institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq. We'll see in 20 years or so if that did us any better.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Watson Ladd (955755)
                There was a 2004 attempted coup in Venezuela. As for democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, forget it. Bush is ramming through a bill that will prevent nationalization of the oil fields in Iraq. Every other Arab nation has nationalized theirs. He's also propping up the House of Saud, the President of Pakistan, the nasty guy in Uzbekistan(who boils people alive), and a lot of others.
      • Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arivanov (12034) on Monday April 23, 2007 @02:23AM (#18837579) Homepage
        So what if he was?

        Playing the devil advocate - I would rather have them manage their nuclear stations safely correctly and being properly trained then having yet another Chernobyl. So if their nuclear espionage stays within the limit of nicking our safety training software for a nuclear plant I would say: Spy more please. And do it more successfully. Please. Pretty please...
        • Playing the devil advocate - I would rather have them manage their nuclear stations safely correctly and being properly trained then having yet another Chernobyl. So if their nuclear espionage stays within the limit of nicking our safety training software for a nuclear plant I would say: Spy more please. And do it more successfully. Please. Pretty please...

          True, but if the reactor in question is a Pu breeder, like the Iraqi one the Israelis blew up at Osirak, then I'd much rather they didn't learn how to op
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by fatduck (961824) *
          Stop being silly. Everyone knows we can't trust the Arabs to run a nuclear power plant - they're not even white.
    • Which bombing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:13AM (#18837241)
      Do you mean the nuclear strikes on Isreal? Or the UN and/or US bombing of Iran that will never happen, even after the aforementioned bombing occurs?

      "Yawn" is ironically right - You need to wake up to what a nuclear equipped Iran means to the world. I don't think we should attack them either but to act unconcerned at them aquiring nuclear weapons is a particularily odd form of madness in its own right, just as mad as Iran willing to "burn" as they said they would to get rid of pesky Israel.

      After all, we'll all be breathing the dust that floats over from a nasty nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.
      • Re:Which bombing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by xero314 (722674) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:36AM (#18837381)

        You need to wake up to what a nuclear equipped Iran means to the world.
        What, that there will be one more country free from the threat of US invasion. Guess I don't see the down side. The only country to ever use nuclear weaponry is the USA, and no mater how insane we may thing other world leaders are, the out cry that country such and such would be a threat if they had nuclear capability has yet to come true. It might also mean that certain countries stop wasting resources on the defense of an artificially established nation.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by king-manic (409855)
          What, that there will be one more country free from the threat of US invasion. Guess I don't see the down side. The only country to ever use nuclear weaponry is the USA, and no mater how insane we may thing other world leaders are, the out cry that country such and such would be a threat if they had nuclear capability has yet to come true. It might also mean that certain countries stop wasting resources on the defense of an artificially established nation.

          Downside is a highly religiously motivated nation wi
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by The Bungi (221687)
          What, that there will be one more country free from the threat of US invasion.

          Unfortunately for this particular argument, Iran did not start working on a nuclear weapon in March of 2003. The assertion that poor little Iran started working on their own nukes as a response to the invasion of Iraq is, to put it mildly, bullshit. They've been working on that for decades.

          More to the point, the "we have nukes so you can't invade us, nyah" argument tends to dissolve if you consider that even a bunch of wacked

      • You are correct that fallout would spread fairly far in and Iran-Israel exchange. But what may be of greater concern is the floatup. The carbon content of cities can be lifted quite high when the Sun heats the soot aeorsols. This means prolonged global cooling with substantial effects on growing seasons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/0612 1 1090729.htm [sciencedaily.com]. An India-Pakistan-size exchange could lead to famine around the world. Presumably at least one side has that kind of fire power in the Ira
        • Wasn't the whole nuclear winter thing kind of discredited some time back? Though that paper you linked to is much more recent... And I'm sure some people are thinking right now "Hey, that'll offset global Warming!". Yipe.

          Basically I'd love not to find out either way. Instant climate change to an unknown state is not a fun expiriment.
      • Why not respond to all the cowards at once?

        Basically attacks on Israel upset me as a person who finds the instant deaths of millions in any country (Iran or Israel) disquieting. If you are an environmentalist you should be concerend with all the radioactive dust coating the planet. If you are a libertarian you should be concerned because a nuclear exchange in the middle east means big-time ramping of of miltary spending across the planet. If you are an international foreign policy wonk you would have to
      • I think if they get a single bomb online I wouldn't mind Isreal doing a pre-emptive strike on the nuke site. Chances are Iran will eventually threaten with nuclear war unless isreal retreat to pre 1967 borders and so on. A massive air compaign or a single nuclear strike on all iranian nuclear facilities and suspect labs would curb that... and start a massive arab isreali war perhaps. I know arabia isn't full of evil devils but the ones in power there are not the best of people to get nukes. An iranian could
  • Seems to me that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty basically requires the sharing of nuclear know-how. This is not the method to do it, but sharing the way to run a plant should be pretty basic under the treaty. The trouble is that everyone feels so threatened by the prolifereation and the lack of serious progress on arms reductions that the fabric of the treaty is very frayed.
    --
    Sun Beams for Peace: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user s -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
  • Uhh... (Score:3, Informative)

    by paulius_g (808556) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:16AM (#18837263) Homepage
    You probably meant UPLOADED to Iran. Or, downloaded FROM Iran.
  • by Antony-Kyre (807195) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:31AM (#18837355)
    It disturbs me that this politician is being quoted as saying that Iran is dead-set on developing a nuclear weapon when there is absolutely no proof that is happening. That would be like saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions.
  • "What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended."

    This all could have been avoided if they'd locked access down to specific IPs ONLY. As in domestic US only.
  • Why did the server even accept the connection from the Iranian ISP? Can't be that hard to block out connections from rouge countries.
    • Somebody mislabelled the Iran tube, leading to the prudent but perhaps unnecessary blocking of all ISPs from Guam.

      Dang tubes. They'll get you every time. Why they had to build the internet out of 'em in the first place will never make much sense to me.

      Because every topic must have at least one post making fun of the fact that an 83 year old man doesn't understand the internet... sorry, Ted!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lixee (863589)

      Can't be that hard to block out connections from rouge countries.

      Ha! I didn't know Iranians were communists.
  • Which one? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ms1234 (211056) on Monday April 23, 2007 @01:50AM (#18837445)
    Would it be Nucular or Nuclear? If it's the first, then I'm not worried.
  • They are trying to convince the world, their nuclear program is for electricity only.

  • I knew it all along. Bush knew it all along, Iran lied about developing nuclear technology for power plants and instead intends to make WMD's!! Oh wait what. . ? Other way around? Iran might have been telling the truth the whole time? Shouldn't this be "good" news?
  • by megamerican (1073936) on Monday April 23, 2007 @02:22AM (#18837569)
    From this article and another [kpho.com] article it appears that the media and officials are saying two different things. At the beginning of the article I linked it says that he downloaded designs for control rooms, reactors, etc, but later in the article a statement from public officials says that only training software was taken. There is a HUGE difference between designs and training software. The beginning paragraph is extremely misleading and overstating the problem. I don't see how getting a hold of training software will get Iran any further along in developing a nuclear reactor.

    This is from the article I linked. "The investigation has not led us to believe this information was taken for the purpose of being used by a foreign government or terrorists to attack us," said Deborah McCarley, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Phoenix. "This does not appear to be terrorist-related." AZCentral is more concerned with reactions from politicians think about something they know no more about than any of us.

    Why is AZCentral interviewing politicians about this case and not people involved in the investigation? AZC doesn't even mention that Palo Verde has already changed their system to not let anyone gain access to any files after they are no longer employed by them. This story really isn't a big deal. If he was able to steal classified information on designs of a nuclear reactor, that'd be one thing, but this is just another case of the media trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is.

  • troubling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarsDude (74832) on Monday April 23, 2007 @02:56AM (#18837713) Homepage
    "What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended."

    Sure, he shouldn't have had access anymore. But how much more secure would that have been. If you're employed there, you can download it. And you would still have it after your employment ends.

    People are overly concerned with security, to a degree that it is becoming rediculous.
    If people can read it, hear it or see it, it can be reproduced to a non-secure form anyway.
    Sure, you must have ways to make it more difficult/near impossible to get there without inside help, but don't get silly.
  • .Torrent? (Score:4, Funny)

    by KoldKompress (1034414) on Monday April 23, 2007 @03:30AM (#18837859)
    Anyone got the .torrent to the software?
    for.. training purposes. You know.
  • by jeswin (981808) on Monday April 23, 2007 @03:56AM (#18837953) Homepage
    This is ironical, since one of the provisions of the NPT was assistance and technology transfer to non-nuclear states for peaceful purposes in return for their undertaking not acquiring nukes. Iran should not have to obtain such data clandestinely (That too, and operation manual!). The reality is that nuclear weapon states (P5) has done little to transfer technology , and even less on their commitment to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

    Btw, the NPT is flawed and fundamentally flawed. Discriminatory to the naivest, I am not sure how anyone could even suggest something like - 'I CAN, but you sire, CANNOT'. Justice and equality.

    What is needed is complete disarmament, or transfer of nukes to common control against possibly an asteroid or comet. Until then, I refuse to say that some nukes are good and some are bad.
  • The Funny Part Is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by N8F8 (4562) on Monday April 23, 2007 @04:57AM (#18838159)
    A bunch of you guys would have badmouthed the US had they reported his firing for ANY reason in the first place. Anyone want to speculate how much information the guy transferred before he jumped the fence.
  • by MrSteveSD (801820) on Monday April 23, 2007 @05:18AM (#18838233)
    Some of the same officials who are strongly opposed to the Iranian nuclear program now, were advocating it back in the 70s when the Shah was in power. So it's ok for a brutal dictator but not for a theocracy? The nuclear issue is really a distraction. The US government is opposed to the current theocratic regime just as it was opposed to the democratic regime under Mossadegh. The internal nature of the regime is not a concern, only it's stance towards US interests. It's a question of control.
  • OH NOESS!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by crhylove (205956) <rhy@leperkhanz.com> on Monday April 23, 2007 @06:09AM (#18838397) Homepage Journal
    They might actually build a CONTROL ROOM. YOU SICK TWISTED MUSLIM TERRORISTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPLORE CHEAP ELECTRICITY!!! OPEC will kill you all!!

    rhY

    PS This is where I put plenty of non caps text because my attempt at /. humor is being lame filtered.
  • by ErichTheRed (39327) on Monday April 23, 2007 @09:19AM (#18839259)
    The nature of the data isn't the biggest story...it's the fact that someone who doesn't work there anymore had access to it.

    I've seen this a million times; it happens in every single company, but especially so in large ones. There's no connection between human resources and the system administrators in some cases. When you're fired or quit, an automatic process that is kicked off by the routine that prints your last paycheck should also disable your accounts. The problem is the disconnected nature of systems.

    Even in disconnected environments, it's possible to do this by assigning someone to be responsible for accounts. In previous IT organizations, this was usually the PFY's job. Unfortunately, this is an incredibly boring job and it is difficult to keep someone doing this forever. It's a problem that could be solved by technology, but either (a) none of the sysadmin staff want to work on it because they fear automation that might take their jobs, or (b) the company has such a complex HR system (homegrown mess, SAP, etc.) that building interfaces is really hard.

    I'm going to sound old here, but I'd like to jump back a few technology generations to when you actually needed to be a highly skilled technologist to take care of systems. It would force a little discipline, which is lacking. Sysadmins are overworked, this is true. That's often why you see stories like this. But a good sysadmin knows how to automate the tedious.

"Right now I feel that I've got my feet on the ground as far as my head is concerned." -- Baseball pitcher Bo Belinsky

Working...