BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Suggest new topics here

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Is management uncomfortable with this BLOG?

I wonder if the lab could try to put pressure on scooby because these threads are probably making lab management uncomfortable, especially all of the posts that air out the lab's dirty laundry. Heavy handed methods are used to silence their own employees, but I don't know of an example where they actually had any power to silence people on the outside. But I wouldn't put it past the lab to try.


Comment:

Get a lawyer AND a publicist if it happens. This is the kind of stuff that should hit the news, if the lab is going to try to beat up on private citizens on top of all the lies and deception.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Silence people on the outside," are you for real? Their cloaking device only works to prevent them from seeing the outside world. If they camne out to play, they would have their head handed to them.

Anonymous said...

Well it's clear that the threads have hit a nerve. In particular the thread that provided journal article references. Funny thing though is that topic was mentioned many times over in the past to no effect. It's not clear what has changed.

Osamequin said...

As a outsider I did not want NIF cut because fusion research is critical. New developments in lasers and materials should keep it real and attainable, so a longer approach would allow new applications to be incorporated.

Anonymous said...

Since both LLNS and LANS label almost everything that sheds light on their management actions as "corporate proprietary" and refuse to let it go out you bet they are uncomfortable with this blog.

The drop in transparency since the "for profit" Bechtel led LLCs took over has been breath-taking to watch! Many of the morons in upper management have a growing distrust of their own employees. The stories are out there to prove it.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the mismarking of documents (for example, OUO, corporate proprietary, etc., for say, experimental unclassified scientific data that was paid for and is owned by the federal government), a potential violation of federal law if the lab refuse to comply with a FOIA request for that government owned scientific data that did not actually fall into any exempt categories in the markings guidelines? Sure, sometimes mismarkings are unintentional and the result of carelessness or ignorance to policy. However, one could begin to reason an intentional effort to hide information and circumvent federal law if, for instance, someone knew of the existence of a clearly mismarked document and made a FOIA request that was repeatedly denied by the lab. Based on the content of the documents requested, one may begin to build a case to establish motivation for a lab to intentionally mismark documents in order to evade external scrutiny via these information requests.

The possibilities are endless.

Anonymous said...

There were some recent court rulings pertaining to FOIA exemptions and the abuse thereof. Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and some have tried and failed to use exemption 4 as a reason to block disclosure of what might amount to embarassing information. For unclassified information generated and utilized at llnl and lanl, for their nnsa sponsor, i dont think exemption 4 can be used to block disclosure. llnl and lanl may be rivals, but they are not really competitors by manner of how funding is allocated. You can't generate a trade secret if you are not disadvantaged by its disclosure to the few other places that engage in similar work.

And so I'm somewhat curious regarding the policy and practices for using the 'corporate proprietary' marking on documents at LLNS. It seems like there should be a test case to challenge the use of the marking. There are many situations when that marking is appropriate. Designs that include IP information belonging to vendors or partners, for example. However, that marking cannot be used to block non-exempt information from disclosure either. Trade secret information can be removed prior to release. If FOIA exemptions are being abused, then clearly a lawsuit and ruling may help resolve this issue.

Anonymous said...

...a potential violation of federal law if the lab refuse to comply with a FOIA request...

FYI, The contractor Labs (LANL and LLNL) do not respond to FOIA requests. Only a Federal entity (i.e., DOE/NNSA) can do so. All FOIA requests to the Labs are passed to DOE/NNSA for resolution.

Anonymous said...

I have a question. So even information that is contained in internal memos that is in the possession of only LLNL or NIF management and personnel and not in the possession of NNSA administrators, can be requested? Also who makes the determination for what material contained in documents marked for exemption can be released through a FOIA request? Do LLNL make any of the determinations for what material is evaluated to be forwarded to NNSA, or do NNSA officials have access to all files directly? The reason I'm asking is to plan for a situation where the requester knows with good confidence that the material is at the lab, NNSA may or may not know about it's existence, and the lab does not comply in good faith with a request made by NNSA for a FOIA request. I know this sounds like paranoia. But It's well known to many that some LLNL officials have very poor relationships with those in Washington, not just at NNSA, and that lab attitudes toward their NNSA sponsor is not all that great right now.

Anonymous said...

A well planned FOIA request and subsequent lawsuit would finally put a wooden stake through the heart of the beast. Deuterium EoS showed how vulnerable they are. The truth really does hurt them. But they have chosen to double down on the lies. Their own words and documents can cause such great self-inflicted harm to the lab. Its just too bad that the tax payers foot the bill for the pitiful welfare program called NIF.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days