[clug] Re: More (almost free) stuff. - 3.5" WD 200GB IDE - $10

[Steve McInerney]

On Tue, September 9, 2008 22:40, Paul Wayper wrote:
> Realistically, by the same argument, I think there's probably a fairly
> good
> case for just writing twenty-six alternating all-ones and all-zeros
> layers.

Under what circumstances?
"I think..." is not a terribly useful risk analysis. :-)


> The thing that annoys me is, ultimately, the truly paranoid argue for
> burning
> the drive in a furnace.

Using labels to denigrate an opposing POV is a poor way of arguing your
case; and will typically cause your entire argument to be rejected out of
hand.


>  This is a waste of a perfectly good functioning
> hard
> disk, often (since the real application of this kind of security is in
> corporate and government data centres) a fairly costly one.  Effectively
> these
> people are throwing more of your and my money down the drain in the name
> of
> paranoia without any real proof that their actions are saving any money.

Out of idle curiosity: How many soldiers lives wasted would you consider
to be sufficient proof that this was no longer a waste of money?
How many leaks of bank account details?


> It's
> all security theatre.

No. It's called Risk Analysis.

One obvious & trivial counter is the media published leaks of details from
HDD's that *weren't* sanitised. Somewhat surprisingly :-) physical
destruction makes this particular process failure a lot harder to achieve.
And as an entire *process*, physical destruction is a LOT cheaper than
sanitisation.


Cheers!
- Steve