Hi You don't specify which government, but let's assume it's one with an comprehensive information assurance policy. First things first. Find out who the technical authority for information assurance is in your country. Then find out what the official policy on erasing and destroying information assets are. This information may not be published, and you may need to be registered with the technical authority to access it. Then cross reference against the terms of the contract. Then do. To help you a little, most best practice policies describe a range of methods. The selection of which method depends on * the device used to hold the data - HDD, flash memory (multiple technologies), DRAM, etc * the classification / protective marking of the data (SECRET, TOP SECRET etc) * whether the device is being re-used (for new data) within the same secure facility where it was held originally, or is it being removed from that facility (for destruction) Removal methods vary from using certified data erasure products, to complete physical destruction via a specified and approved method. In any case, there will be a detailed procedure to follow, possibly also independent witnessing and certification of the destruction. In any case, there will be an explicit process to follow, as well as copious paperwork. Note the use of the phrase 'certified...products'. While tools such as DBAN may be effective, they are not approved and certified by your national technical authority for information assurance. Using a non-certified product is equivalent to using nothing, and there may be penalties if you claim to have followed the set process, but used such non approved tools. Your organisation should have an information security officer (or similar executive) who is responsible for this. Normally it is a pre-requisite to have such a professional as a pre-requisite to handling classified / protectively marked material in most countries. What you've discovered should really have been caught pre-contract signing, by your legal and/or commercial people. You need to talk to your bosses about this. Oversights such as this can destroy a business, both in terms of money and reputation. HTH g

I think you are confusing some of the political unrest from the 80s with the self-serving mindless violence of recent weeks.
It is absolutely true to say that government cuts are affecting national and local funding for all citizens, and they are affecting deprived areas. However, these cuts have only come in to effect fully from April this year. The unemployment and illiteracy have been at those levels for a long time, including during the boom years of 1995-2005, and during the previous Labour administration. It is illogical to say that the currently limited impacts of the austerity measures are giving people cause to riot. If you look at the actual activity during the riots, it didn't include political protest, marches, speeches or any other normal signs of protest by ordinary people. It did include a relatively large number of groups causing criminal damage, violence and commiting flagrant acts of theft - typically of high value goods and big name brands. This was theft on a large scale, enabled by breakdown in normal social barriers.
The government is planning to reduce both front and back office police numbers, however these cuts have not taken place yet to any extent. Police numbers are at almost record levels. The police didn't retreat to protect stations, they deployed in the areas that they thought needed protection. However the mobile hoards, enabled by SMS and social networks, just moved to new sites, typically after a short skirmish. In short, asymmetric confrontation and overwhelming numbers. Once the scale of the problem was understood (a d a few politicians returned from holiday) they brought in an extra 16000 police for London alone - an increase of approximately 25% on the normal force. This managed to suppress most of the activity.
There are currently reportedly over 1000 people arrested, and the MPS have suggested that possibly another 2000 will be, once the CCTV and other evidence is analysed. This is hardly tiny by any one's measure.
As for brutal policing, the MPS have been negatively criticised for not being tough enough in the first few days, and they adjusted their tactics subsequently. They have not however used plastic bullets, water cannon, tear gas or any other large scale crowd suppression measures. This is not brutal. If you want to see 'firm' policing, ask the French.
As for fixing problems on the ground, the previous administration spent 10s of billions over more than a decade on enhanced social benefits and programmes for the disadvantaged. While it has doubtless helped many, it has also raised a generation that expects to live off the state, spurn education and employment, contribute nothing in return except vocal occasionally violent protest about how they are not provided enough.

Not only is it a big ass PNG, it's also in AdobeRGB colourspace - so probably about .1% of the readership is actually able to see it correctly. and never mind cutting file size by 75%, try 90 or 95%, and that's without even touching the resolution. The only question is why he didn't go the whole hog with a 32-bit image instead of the paltry 8-bit option. (that last bit was sarcasm, or should I say the last 24 bots were sarcasm) Leading technology web site, eh? Remind me again of the relevance of slashdot, with stories regularly appearing a day or two days behind other sites, slashvertisements, and little in the way of original content. And I agree with the others, taking advantage of users' good will and giving nothing back is pretty weak.

I really hope you're trying to be sarcastic or ironic - otherwise there isn't a clue stick big enough. The 'only way' isn't. There are several. All methods of interception require money, some require legislation and the rest require subterfuge and technical skill. In this case I imagine it's very simple. The state has a law saying it's legal for certain agencies to intercept calls in order to protect national security. The state's telecoms provider(s) purchase interception equipment from telecoms hardware providers. It gets plugged in and switched on. The state uses it. No conspiracy, no mad l33t skillz, no drama. Except possibly for the subjects/victims of the interception. For examples of legal intercept equipment, see http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisco.com%2Fweb%2Fabout%2Fsecurity%2Fintelligence%2FLI-3GPP.html&ei=CWy3Td-NNZS1hAe6_8H3Dg&usg=AFQjCNGEKGTT3PTOMkB172TvxVlkqgMKZg or http://www.scribd.com/doc/49742557/50/Legal-Interception-Gateway-LIG There is of course the relatively recent case of illegal intercept, in Greece. There it came to light that politicians and other high profile figures had their mobils calls tapped. On investigation, one of the country's mobile providers found that someone had installed, configured and turned on the 'legal intercept' software/hardware to do the tapping. Here's the rub - it wasn't done by the government company or home intelligence service. So who did it and why?

They have - by mandating that appropriate controls are implemented, including full disk encryption. See http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/spf/sp4_isa.aspx - specifically requirement #40.

Truecrypt is not a product tested and approved by http://www.cesg.gov.uk/ so it can't be used for UK government business. If someone is willing to pony up the accreditation fees, and it passes, then it can be used.

These new UK gov regulations are interesting - they make specific nominated individuals in every government organisation personally responsible for data security - with penalties including fines and prison. Unsurprisingly, data security is now very heavily implemented and monitored.