Skip to main content

Do you have stories to share?

Image
By scooby
My name is Zach Dorfman--I'm an SF-based journalist working on a story on the particular challenges surrounding counterintelligence/counterespionage in the Bay Area. While Russian espionage will likely be the focus, I'm also interested in the actions of other states, such as China.

LLNL and Sandia are obviously an important part of this story. I saw your blog, which seems to serve as a lively forum for former and current DoE employees, and therefore wanted to reach out.

If you have readers who worked in counterintelligence at LLNL or Sandia (or any of the other national labs, for that matter) or just have stories to share, I'd very much appreciate if you could pass on this request. These conversations can be structured in ways that ensure anonymity regarding what ultimately appears in print, if desired. That includes shielding the institutional identity of one's current or past employer.

I'm an independent journalist and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. My work has appeared in the Atlantic, Politico Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs, among other outlets. My 2016 piece for the Atavist, "Codename: Chilbom," was a finalist for a Livingston Award. Here's a link to my website: www.zachdorfman.com. 

Please feel free to get in touch at zachsdorfman AT gmail DOT com

Thanks again 

Best,
Zach

Comments

Anonymous said…


This guy makes a living with this stuff?
9/11/2017 9:30 PM
Anonymous said…
First rule of Fight Club.

9/12/2017 5:24 AM
Anonymous said…
If you have something of value to say, it is greatly appreciated. Comments like the two above are just noise.
9/12/2017 8:41 AM
Anonymous said…
Comments like the three above are just noise.

Did you read some of the stuff from Zach? Please do that if you want to talk about noise.
9/12/2017 10:56 AM
Anonymous said…
All information on this topic is classified and cannot be disclosed publically or to you without a review and release from an ADC.

Zach. You know that. Do you really was to create traitors and lawbreakers?
9/12/2017 10:20 PM
GreggS said…
10:20 has a point, although not entirely accurate.

There are certain aspects of this topic that must remain classified. Even after leaving work, those of us who held a Q-clearance or higher are under obligation to not disclose certain things that we learned as part of our time at the lab(s). If there is ANY doubt, the information has to be checked first to make sure that classified information is not being given away - what we call review and release.

Once those ground rules are understood, perhaps some material useful for his article can be provided. I hope Zach understands this and is not too disappointed by the limitations, but we do have our obligations. In some cases there are bonafide lives at stake.
9/13/2017 12:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Even after leaving work, those of us who held a Q-clearance or higher are under obligation to not disclose certain things that we learned as part of our time at the lab(s).

September 13, 2017 at 12:29 AM

Just to be picky, a Q clearance grants need-to-know access to TSRD, as well as TSNSI. There is no classification level "higher." There are though some program-specific authorizations necessary beyond what a Q allows. Some people refer to these generically as "black programs." These may require additional background checks and tests. etc., but none of the information involved is ever above TS as a classification level. There isn't any such thing.
9/13/2017 6:40 PM
Anonymous said…
Apparently, September 13, 2017 at 6:40 PM, has not been "read-in" to the next level.
9/14/2017 11:44 AM
Anonymous said…
Point to a statute or executive order that establishes a classification level above Top Secret. There isn't one. Access caveats are often attached to information considered more sensitive, such as code word designation, intel compartments, etc., but none is classified at a level above TS. In fact, much of it is at the Secret level, to allow participation of agencies whose handling rules are more strict than others'. BTW, I've been read into and out of many black programs over my career. I also understand the US information classification system, including its origins and legal basis.
9/14/2017 12:27 PM
Anonymous said…
Just to be picky and correct, September 13, 2017 at 6:40 PM is wrong.

A Q-clearance indicates access approval to information up to and including TS//RD and TS//NSI once Need-to-Know is established. It say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Need-to-Know in and of itself.

It it theoretically possible to have a Q-clearance and complete an entire career without ever accessing classified information.
9/14/2017 1:23 PM
Anonymous said…
September 14, 2017 at 1:23 PM missed the fact that September 13, 2017 at 6:40 PM said "a Q clearance grants need-to-know access to TSRD, as well as TSNSI." Nothing "wrong" about that. I.e., if a Q clearance exists, and NTK is established, access is granted. Pretty simple for most of us to understand.
9/14/2017 6:44 PM
Anonymous said…
So, access to classified info and level of clearance amounts to snobbery by class(ification) distinction? I think I lost the thread. WTF. The original request asked for info that may delve into areas that should be protected and may be classified. Follow the friggin' rules, that you swore on your honor to uphold.
9/14/2017 6:59 PM
Anonymous said…
So, access to classified info and level of clearance amounts to snobbery by class(ification) distinction?

September 14, 2017 at 6:59 PM

Yeah, right. That attitude makes me glad you never held a clearance.
9/15/2017 7:24 AM
Anonymous said…
Clearance holders who think someone is fishing for classified information are obliged to report the person to counter-intelligence.
9/15/2017 5:34 PM
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said:

Yeah, right. That attitude makes me glad you never held a clearance.

September 15, 2017 at 7:24 AM


Had a clearance for over 40 years. Follow the friggin' rules, that you swore on your honor to uphold. Get it?
9/16/2017 8:59 AM
Anonymous said…
You're the one who said the classification system = "snobbery." That's not an attitude conducive to "following the rules."
9/16/2017 5:44 PM
Anonymous said…
September 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, sorry, I didn't realize English is not your native language. For native speakers, "grants need-to-know access" is a very different concept than "grants access when supported with valid need-to-know."

The fact you don't know where the backslashes get used is also indicative.
9/17/2017 8:45 AM
Anonymous said…
The thread ends here because the "moderators" deleted responses to September 17, 2017 at 8:45 AM's derogatory post, although interestingly, not the derogatory post itself. Agendas, agendas.
9/20/2017 5:20 PM
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