Comment Re:How does... (Score 1) 186
But as pointed out this is unnecessary and those PCs/disks could benefit a lot of needy people. Securely re-imaging a hard disk isn't difficult.
But as pointed out this is unnecessary and those PCs/disks could benefit a lot of needy people. Securely re-imaging a hard disk isn't difficult.
... for sensitive data, more passes is standard.
Somebody needs to question that standard. There's no credible evidence that data can be recovered after writing a single pass of random data.
Even if there was any evidence (and let's be clear, there isn't...), if anybody wants to spend that much money trying to recover data from machines bought randomly on eBay they should be encouraged to do so. The sooner they go bankrupt, the better.
Sigh.
OK, let's agree it more than 10 minutes.
Now can you address the actual point, which was: "It's not difficult to wipe hard drives in a time frame which is consistent with upgrading a room full of PCs."
Ok, let's agree it more than 10 minutes. Now can you address the actual point...?
(I should have known better than to put an actual number on slashdot...)
... mostly depending on the exact terms of the contract.
You know how I know you didn't read the article?
Formatting works perfectly well for data destruction.
(cue line of geeks with theories about why it isn't despite the fact that they can't come up with a single example of data recovery after formatting...)
How hard can it be for a government to make a CD stick which you insert in a PC which boots up and wipes the hard drive?
They could insert one in every PC before they remove it from the person's desk. It would take about ten minutes. If they're doing a roomful of PCs (as they mostly do) then by the time you got around to putting the CD in the last machine, the first one would be finished.
Because there was no actual "contract" requiring him to destroy them.
That's the real problem in this case - no contract. It's all all in TFA (if you can be bothered with such trivia).
If you read TFA you'll see there's no contract. The word "contractor" implies it but really they were just handed to a guy who crossed his heart and promised to do it before putting them on eBay.
OTOH, you're right that the NHS shouldn't be fined. The person who handed over the computers (presumably to a friend of his) needs jailing.
They shouldn't be fining themselves, they should be jailing the person responsible for handing them to the "unnamed contractor" (who was probably a friend).
Bzzt! You lose. For your "theory", lets say the government buys a $1000 widget. It didn't produce that widget, it spent the money to buy that widget. It didn't spend $1000 for that widget, it spent $1200 because the government has its overhead.
Bzzt! You lose. The government pays at least 400% markup on anything it buys.
Oh, wait... the SHA1 of "badg3r5" is actually 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50.
(mushroom, mushroom)
I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service, which can be activated by a customer (by two factors: permission and network access), and that without action on the part of the customer, said backdoor is closed.
"Permission" isn't much of a safeguard against criminals. They tend to do stuff without it.
(Isn't that the very definition of "criminal", i.e. doing stuff they don't have permission to do?)
Let's face it, it's far more likely to be "HP1234" than anything as complex as l33t-speak.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
