Skip to main content

Is management uncomfortable with this BLOG?

Image
By scooby
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:

   Anonymous said...
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.

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.
12/18/2012 2:38 PM
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.
12/18/2012 4:29 PM
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.
12/19/2012 7:33 AM
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.
12/19/2012 12:57 PM
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.

12/19/2012 3:43 PM
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.
12/19/2012 4:45 PM
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.
12/19/2012 6:24 PM
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.
12/20/2012 11:10 AM
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.
12/27/2012 12:52 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more