Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security The Military

US Nuclear Weapons Lab Loses 67 Computers 185

pnorth writes "Officials from New Mexico's Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory have confessed that 67 of its computers are missing, with no less than 13 of them having disappeared over the past year alone. A memo [PDF] leaked by the Project on Government Oversight watchdog brought the lost nuclear laptops to the public's attention, but the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration dismissed fears the computers contained highly-sensitive or classified information, noting it was more likely to cause 'cybersecurity issues.' Three of the 13 computers which went missing in the past year were stolen from a scientist's home on January 16 and the memo also mentioned a BlackBerry belonging to another staff member had been lost 'in a sensitive foreign country.' The labs faced similar issues back in 2003 when 22 laptops were designated as being 'unlocated.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Nuclear Weapons Lab Loses 67 Computers

Comments Filter:
  • better than... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spandex_panda ( 1168381 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @05:29PM (#26833949)
    I guess causing 'cybersecurity issues' is better than 'nuclear warfare issues'.
  • Euphanisms? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hplus ( 1310833 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @05:32PM (#26833999)
    What "cybersecurity issues" could arise that do not involve sensitive secrets to be leaked?
  • Oh hey (Score:0, Insightful)

    by kjzk ( 1097265 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @05:33PM (#26834017)
    America's greatest threat to national security and the economy is the government itself.
  • This doesn't jive (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hordeking ( 1237940 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @05:40PM (#26834131)

    three of the 13 computers which went missing in the past year were stolen from a scientist's home

    Either this guy gets robbed a lot, or he's been stealing laptops.

  • Re:Euphemisms? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by conureman ( 748753 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @05:44PM (#26834213)

    Passwords and credit info in plaintext, or plain ordinary personal info.

  • by hplus ( 1310833 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @05:44PM (#26834223)
    Rather, that *we* know of.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @05:49PM (#26834329) Journal
    You could also just do it the easy way, and connect to a terminal server to work on sensitive stuff.
  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:01PM (#26834553)

    I just wonder one thing. How many examples of incompetency like this do we need before maybe people will reconsider whether having government get into the health care business

    Other countries do it far better than US private industry can. The secret to running effective government services is not to appoint horse judges unless the task involve judging horses.

    As always however, a mixture instead of an extreme is often the best solution.

    Back to the original article - we've just come through a long period where "being a member of the party" is a better way to get ahead than acheivements. If that makes you think of Godwin's law so be it, but it personally makes me think of shoddy third world kleptocracies.

  • Re:Oh hey (Score:3, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:06PM (#26834639)

    America's greatest threat to national security and the economy is the government itself.

    That's correct, or more specifically the greatest threat is the mismanagement of government that allows it to operate outside of its legitimate roles which is why it can't correctly take care of basic things like this.

    If the history of the 20th century isn't a lesson about the nature of government then I don't know what is. It's a shame that most people don't study this on their own so their primary exposure to it comes from government agents (known as "schoolteachers"). These people quite naturally believe in government (as opposed to regarding it as a necessary evil) or else they wouldn't work for it. Just do some research and add up all the known deaths during the 20th century that were caused by terrorism. Then do some more research and add up all the known deaths during the 20th century that were caused by people being murdered by their own governments. Compare those two numbers and note the vast difference in quantity. Tell me which is more dangerous.

  • by Hordeking ( 1237940 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:15PM (#26834801)

    Where are the guards? Where are the security personnel who watch doors to secret/classified labs containing computers with sensitive information? These are simple questions. They are about people with direct responsibility to the safeguarding of these computers. These sorts of people are people who don't always know what it is that they are guarding and thus may not know how vital their jobs are to this nation. I don't worry about these questions because they have easy answers like, "He took a long lunch", "No one was watching the door" etc. I worry about the other people. The people who walk by every day and notice something is missing but don't deign to ask a simple question, "where did that computer go?" 67 computers went missing and not one scientist noticed? Scientists are educated in the scientific method where a lack of information, or wrong information is seen as the enemy. Scientists should hold themselves duty bound to always tell the truth if only for the reason that if the truth is not told, there can be no progress. In truth, scientists should be as much the guardians of the information they are privy too as the people whose job it is to expressly guard those computers. What has become of these computers is just as an important a questions as what has become of our (the scientific community) morality. For if we can not change our attitudes towards our responsibilities then we can not change our behaviors in respect to them. For all our sakes, I hope they accidentally skipped a room when they were searching.

    While you're quite wrong on a bunch of stuff, let me point out that just because someone is good at surface science or handling energy cross-sections doesn't make them any smarter in other ways. Or observant, for that matter.

    Some of the smartest people I've ever known (including myself) have made some of the dumbest mistakes and said some of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

  • by plopez ( 54068 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:19PM (#26834875) Journal

    New Mexico is a hot bed of drug smuggling and gang activity. IIRC a few years ago they raided a trailer of some employees for drugs and came up with stolen computer gear.

    No international spy conspiracy, just people selling stolen goods to get high.

    Still, this is really lax security in an area rife with crime.

  • by jfb2252 ( 1172123 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:26PM (#26835029)

    There are ~14000 employees at LANL. I'd guess 20,000 laptop and desktop machines. 0.1% loss per year isn't bad. There's nothing in the article to say when the other 67 might have fallen off the radar.

  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:40PM (#26835291) Homepage Journal

    The "missing" computers were cannibalized for parts for the other computers.

    It's a farce really, considering the Chinese already stole our nuclear secrets from Bush.

  • Re:better than... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2009 @09:39PM (#26837747)

    Los Alamos National Laboratory has 12,500 employees...if they lost 13 computers this year, that means, on average, only one computer lost per 1,000 employees. That's not bad, seeing as how the computers were probably CORPORATE laptops employees take on travel and use to work from home. Not everything they do at LLNL is sensitive, by the way...

  • by wongaboo ( 648434 ) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @10:35PM (#26838339)
    Slashdot, are you serious? Two of this guys comments have been moded "insightful." Yet he offers no insight. Having government run healthcare is going to result in numerous incidents like this one. Information is going to be lost that shouldn't. Of course you're kidding yourself if you think that the private insurers aren't losing things they just aren't telling. But that is beside the point what really bothers me is the acceptance by the moderators these two statements as "insightful":

    How many examples of incompetency like this do we need before maybe people will reconsider whether having government get into the health care business and all these other "growth areas" for government is really such a good idea? ... What I am not doing is endorsing any alternative proposals or anything like that.

    Where is the insight? Right now hundreds of thousands of Americans are without healthcare. Many more have inadequate health care. Instead of this in many countries everyone has healthcare. Now admittedly in those countries everyone is subject to "government errors." BUT THEY ALL GET HEALTHCARE. What would be insightful would be to suggest a way for everyone to get healthcare without these types of problems. Maybe that is why some folks are so keen on electronic records? Better record keeping might reduce errors. Come on causality, let's hear some insight!

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...