Re: That Old Anthrax Case

On Aug 12, 7:35 am, Islander <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
al Guacamole wrote:
On Aug 10, 3:47 pm, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
al Guacamole wrote:
On Aug 9, 7:42 am, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
al Guacamole wrote:
On Aug 8, 3:40 pm, Islander <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
al Guacamole wrote:
On Aug 8, 6:44 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:31:03 -0700, Rita <R...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:19:27 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
<georgezb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Islander wrote:
<snip>
If the government really believes the story that is being told,
there
are some people at Ft. Detrick who should also be prosecuted.
While that might affect the goats chosen to take the rap for any
disclosed sins performed in those sensitive areas, there probably
are
a
lot of goatherders much higher up in the food chain who deserve a
lot
closer scrutiny than they're likely to get.
George Z.
If Ivins is indeed a patsy, he was well chosen since the man was
more
than eccentric. And thus would be a perfect choice to pin the
anthrax
attacks on.
But remember the government thought it had a previous very likely
suspect and hounded him for years. That suspect just won a large
damages suit against the government.
Isn't it amazing, the skepticism that's meeting the federal
government's claim that Ivins was for sure the perpetrator?
Apparently it's not just myself who feels lied-to so much that I
don't
trust anything that comes from the federal government anymore.
From Wilkipedia:
Although Attorney General John Ashcroft labeled Dr. Steven Hatfill a
"person of interest" in a press conference, no charges were brought
against him. Hatfill, a virologist, vehemently denied he had
anything
to do with the anthrax (bacteria) mailings and sued the FBI, the
Justice Department, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and others for
violating his constitutional rights and for violating the Privacy
Act.
On June 27, 2008, the Department of Justice announced it would
settle
Hatfill's case for $5.8 million.
Every time I hear a settlement like this, sometimes much
bigger than this, that ends in big financial transfer but no
criminal prosecution, it destroys any sense in me that justice
was served or held to be of any importance. It looks just
all about the money.
It's amazing that the govt continues to pursue this when the news
media reports that a co-worker who knew him rather well, insists on
Ivin's innocence. Apparantly security is rather lax and there are
other folks at the lab who have access to the anthrax. What might be
more relevant is whether the Feds zeal in pursuing this man made him
mentally unstable enough that even his therapist was alarmed enough to
report him. Other critics say it doesn't make sense that he would use
his own stuff. Wouldn't it have been traced to him eventually?
Bruce Ivins mental health problems predate the Anthrax scare.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-ivins7-2008au...
Please explain how somebody with known mental problems doesn't get his
security clearance pulled and isn't barred from working on any kind of
sensitive matters, certainly including stuff like anthrax. To say that
his
bosses knew that he had mental problems and let him continue to work on
stuff like anthrax makes no sense to me once we get past possible gross
incompetence on management's part.
Security could be lax at the facility. Such was the case at IIRC Los
Alamos labs in New Mexico when Richardson unjustly persecuted the
Chinese scientist.
Another is that the fellow in question is competent, a conscientious
worker, and a trustworthy person. Such was the case of the Chinese
scientist at Los Alamos, and this case. For what it's worth, I once
worked for a federal contractor in a sensitive area with classified
documentation. We had a discussion about this one day. One of the
other guys who had gone higher up into the division staff said that
it's a matter of trust.
We had a guy who was cheating on his wife and had told a co-worker,
and a guy who was heavily in debt in Las Vegas because of his gambling
problem. Both were potential black mail candidates but the staff
trusted them. In fact, it was funny that they had thought that anyone
who took more than 6 days a year of sick leave could not be trusted to
be really sick. But when they found out that the division head had
taken way over that, they dropped the issue.
Using "trust" as an excuse for not doing one's job properly is a
manifestation of incompetence AFAIAC. When the wheels come off the race
car, it's too late to say that you trusted the drunken mechanics to tighten
the lugs. If you had reason to check their work, then it behooved you to do
so without further ado. I can't accept anything short of that as acceptable
and certainly not excusable. Maybe I'm too hard nosed about it, but that's
the way I look at stuff like that.

George Z.

Trust's a very common element of security where ever I've worked. It
outranks the rules in practice. But I notice that the military such as
the Navy may take it too seriously. You cannot make it perfect. At
some point, you have to trust the worker.

IIRC when I worked at a Naval shipyard, the military was alway quick
to blame local workers who are not white. It's a kind of racist
attitude about 35 years ago. For example, when a checkout was
satisfactory, a seaman heard an technician say "good enough for govt
work". It caused such a big scandal that to assure the officers of the
ship, the checks and then some, were redone. Two copies of the test
results were shown to the ship. Another of many examples is when a
bolt was dropped in a ships generator, shipyard technicians who were
conducting a test in the area were the first suspects. The
investigation didn't continue until they were proven innocent. It
turned out to be a seaman who wanted to stay ashore a little longer.
For direct evidence of this racism, a high school classmate who is a
local Portuguese, attended a meeting with military officers and heard
them say very racist remarks about the local people in front of the
shipyard commander.

My classmate is white so they were shocked when the he was introduced
as the local shipyard representative. As a result of this lack of
trust, over the years the cost of work has greatly increased because
the military insists on copious documentation and checking of work on
the most mundane jobs. To get around this cost they hire mainland
contractors who don't use such documentation. A little trust would
make the work go a lot smoother. I imagine some security reforms are
in place for the Army but it can also go in the opposite direction in
making more realistic rules that will really work.The military and
govt bureaucrats are fond of making inflexible rules that really don't
work.

Alvin, I think you are mixing up two different things. The DoD has
developed an antagonistic relationship with their contractors which, I
agree, is not conducive to efficient and cost effective work. This is a
consequence of their contracting methods and does a great deal in
promoting ill will between the government and the contractor. Too much
reliance on the letter of the contract and too little personal
interaction to produce a trusting relationship.

What we are talking about here are procedures that are necessary to
protect the public (and the workers) from dangerous substances. This is
not something that can be left to trust.

I agree that it should not be left up to trust. But what happens when
you insist on unworkable procedures? Answer: it goes back to trust. I
think that I have shown that: for all the work that has gone into
complicated signoffs and checks, that the military decided to use
outside contractors who do not have such checks or documentation. Why
make up such silly rules, if you are going to try to find a way
arround them?

Why not have good security procedures that really work so that less
trust is needed? The public does need to be protected but not with
stupid procedures that don't work. Govt bureaucrats keep making this
same mistake-- Democrat or Republican. Just note the prosecution of
the Lee case at Los Alamos by Gov Richardson. It results in a witch
hunt instead of reforms in security that make sense.

Here's another example of silly responses: in the wake of the
Columbine killings the overwhelming response of the public schools
here was to implement a name tag system in each school. There's a
loophole: a number of schools don't provide name tags for substitutes.
A very small number tried to address the root cause of bullying. Name
tag violations are very common; few students wear them and it's an
expensive program as well. Recently, schools were looking for expenses
to cut and a public outcry prevented the elimination of jv sports. To
me it makes more sense to eliminate name tags and release some
security people in favor of a camera system.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: That Old Anthrax Case
    ... trust anything that comes from the federal government anymore. ... to do with the anthrax mailings and sued the FBI, ... Apparantly security is rather lax and there are ... IIRC when I worked at a Naval shipyard, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: That Old Anthrax Case
    ... trust anything that comes from the federal government anymore. ... to do with the anthrax mailings and sued the FBI, ... IIRC when I worked at a Naval shipyard, ... This is a consequence of their contracting methods and does a great deal in promoting ill will between the government and the contractor. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Least User Priviledges for Network Administrators
    ... Trust how? ... Do we trust them to maintain network equipment? ... Do we trust them to observe proper security practices on the desktop, ... Training users that need administrator access to logon as a regular ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • (Asp.Net Full Trust Vulnerabilities) RE: Apache VS IIS Security model question
    ... If the code is running with full trust it can call RevertToSelfand change ... last year at OWASP (Open Web Application Security Project), ... > Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. ... > learn to write exploits and attack security infrastructure. ...
    (Pen-Test)
  • Re: (Asp.Net Full Trust Vulnerabilities) RE: Apache VS IIS Security model question
    ... However I am still unsure how an ASP.NET application, running in Full Trust, ... Each client of the server (say, each department of a company, or each ... Each website is placed into its own custom application pool ... Subject: RE: Apache VS IIS Security ...
    (Pen-Test)