Slashdot Mirror


UK ID Card Scheme Data Deleted For £400K

DaveNJ1987 writes "It will cost the British government only £400,000 to destroy the data for its failed ID card initiative. The data compiled by the National Identity Register, which was scrapped last year by the coalition government, will be disposed of for the relatively small sum — in government figures — Home Office minister Damian Green confirmed."

149 comments

  1. Let me do it by dintech · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll show them how to destroy it for half the price.

    1. Re:Let me do it by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What sort of guarentee can you offer that it will be adequately destroyed?

      This is the problem. They want to be absolutely sure that nobody can get hold of the disk drives and extract the data. At least that's what I'm guessing.

      Really they could just shoove the computers in some dark area of Whitehall and nobody will touch them.

    2. Re:Let me do it by dintech · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you asked. I was going to send all their kit to Nigeria. I'm sure that data will be safe there.

    3. Re:Let me do it by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They could lock them in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that says "Beware of the Leopard", and eventually, someone will find them.

      My guarantee of data destruction - thermite. It's the only way to be sure.

      Well, ok, there are a lot of ways. You could extract the platters and scrub all the ferrite off with soapy water. You could just do a 1-pass wipe and it puts it beyond the capability of all known data recovery labs. There's those specialist industrial shredders designed just for disk drives that reduce them to a small heap of granules.

      But thermite is more fun.

    4. Re:Let me do it by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much it would cost them to get it placed at ground zero of a bomb test by their own military... Bonus points if it is nuclear.

    5. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can throw them into a giant shredder. Which is actually what they're going to do. If I remember correctly they're even planning on doing that to the servers that the discs were in!

    6. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? The idiots who volunteered to sign up for it obviously don't give a crap about privacy or the security of their personal information.

    7. Re:Let me do it by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      I'll show them how to destroy it for half the price.

      I'll do it for a quarter! Seriously, just give me all the paper files and the hard disks of any computers and I'll stick them in a skip and set the whole mess on fire. Could turn it into a street party celebrating the end of a sinister Orwellian initiative!

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    8. Re:Let me do it by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What sort of guarentee[sic] can you offer that it will be adequately destroyed?

      The same guarantee that everybody else offers - cast iron, 100% and fully contractually enforceable. At least enforceable against the tiny limited liability shell company with no assets that you've spun off to do the actual work.

      See, it's not how you do the work, it's how you do the business that matters.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    9. Re:Let me do it by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      might want to throw some termite into the mix to be sure.
      I like the street party idea though.

    10. Re:Let me do it by SharpFang · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem is the destroying the data stored in wetware of employees who collected and accessed it.

      I heard they contacted the Church of Scientology on techniques of secure brainwashing, but there are concerns both about quality, security and moral side of the process.

      There are opinions that disposing of the employees using the big shredder is both safer and more humane.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      termites?

    12. Re:Let me do it by Apatharch · · Score: 1
      I know it's not the done thing to actually read the article, so:

      The destruction will be carried out by a a CESG accredited and approved supplier, securely and in accordance with established secure destruction policy, procedures and guidelines, Green said. These include compliance with the HMS IA Standard No. 5-Secure Sanitisation of Protectively Marked Sensitive Information. Physical equipment holding the data will be degaussed and physically shredded.

    13. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the people on the register were idiots who volunteered, but a lot of them were just people who were unfortunate enough to need a new passport at the time when they were harvesting data.

    14. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For £200k, I'm pretty sure you could find a big heatproof container, throw the drives in, and apply a large quantity of thermite.

      Oh, and you might have about £195k to spare.

    15. Re:Let me do it by Dan1701 · · Score: 1

      You'd better send along a few minders for them then, since the British Government civil servants and MPs have a silly habit of leaving unencrypted data on trains, or exposed at the top of folders where paparazzi can photograph it, or even sending it through the post encrypted as per regulations, with the passphrase written on the CD-ROM (which was not forbidden in regulations, since the author of these regs didn't grasp the knuckle-dragging depths of stupidity that civil servants can descend to)...

    16. Re:Let me do it by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      yes!
      hungry metal eating termites!
      of course they might eat the skip too so RUN!

    17. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I thought termites eat only wood...

      Oh, thermite, right...

    18. Re:Let me do it by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

      More likely they'll just delegate it to a junior civil servant who'll get drunk after work and leave it in a taxi.

      Of course if you really want to destroy it just send it through the post, with a prominent label saying "FRAGILE".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Let me do it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Never. Ever. Ever. fuck with an angry thermite colony...

      Even fire ants won't burn their way through an engine block just to get at you.

    20. Re:Let me do it by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      'Orwellian'? Those poor French bastards! Oh the humanity!

      (FWIW my main disagreement was on the basis of costs and the security of your information so it's fine by me that it's gone.)

    21. Re:Let me do it by santax · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's how I got rid of the first wife! No need to murder anyone, just put her in a box, stamp Fragile and Alaska on it and you're good.

    22. Re:Let me do it by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      KYC woud mean I would not do business with the shell, as it would be unable to meet the contract conditions.

      Proper KYC exposes those shell games very quickly, and you're simply removed from the list of approved providers.

    23. Re:Let me do it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If they don't break her, they'll forget her in some godforsaken postal storage place for "misplaced" crates that are too heavy for a single postman to carry and since they cooperate usually as well as the average Popes...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Let me do it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      An Orwellian bonfire... I was expecting this to be held at the Parliament, somehow...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Industrial shredder first (we have one at work; makes sub-1" slivers of metal) and then thermite. But you have to wear a beret and have a walrus mustache.

    26. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are all Kingston Yacht Club members so dodgy then?

    27. Re:Let me do it by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      Just drop the drives into a bitorrent seedbox for a pr0n site - the data will be overwritten many times in the first few hours.

    28. Re:Let me do it by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Probably good enough, benefits if you're already there:
      Drop at the Marianas trench.

      Random volcano would probably do just fine as well. Iceland don't have to pay this much ;)

      Bomb it as someone else has said.

      I don't see why one need to over do it. Throw it into some metal recycling thingy and it's probably taken care of well enough anyway. Atleast if you supervise the process.

    29. Re:Let me do it by Saint+Gerbil · · Score: 1

      At least they are doing it properly rather than the "leave on train" strategy of recent years.

    30. Re:Let me do it by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      ...This is government collected and stored data, it is not on one hard drive, or one system, it is scattered on multiple systems, backed up of many others, and parts are now in other databases, this is why it costs this much, most of this is search fees to find output where the data is from audit trails ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    31. Re:Let me do it by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Shred the employees as well. It's not like they're real people or anything.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    32. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    33. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I now understand where Sarah Palin came from...

    34. Re:Let me do it by tom17 · · Score: 1

      But how did you get down the stairs?

    35. Re:Let me do it by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      I don't think they ever actually started putting passport applicants on the system. It was meant to start in 2008, but the date got pushed back to 2011/2012, so the system was scrapped before it started.

      Airside airport workers were the only people ever to be added to the system against their will, I think. Foreign nationals were also added, as a condition of being allowed to live in the country.

    36. Re:Let me do it by sjames · · Score: 1

      Now with t25 and ultrafresh!

      It sounds like the usual government standard, either way over-do or be completely ineffective. There can be no middle ground.

      Why not just degauss the tapes and overwrite and then re-deploy the drives in other secure projects? If used in a RAID, it's actually desirable to use drives of varying ages and production lots anyway. As long as they are deployed to a secure project, they'll eventually get shredded when they have served for their entire useful life.

    37. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Really they could just shoove the computers in some dark area of Whitehall and nobody will touch them.

      "Shall I file it?"
      "Shall you file it? Shred it!"
      "Shred it?!"
      "No-one must ever be able to find it again!"
      "In that case, Minister, I think it's best I file it"

      --
      FGD 135
    38. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I'll ram all of it down Tony Blair's throat, one platter at a time.

    39. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish that was where she was going.

    40. Re:Let me do it by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      :)

      I will admit that I was thinking about that episode when I wrote that comment.

    41. Re:Let me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please give this guy the job!!! I can see this being extremely electorally popular

    42. Re:Let me do it by Xest · · Score: 1

      "What sort of guarentee can you offer that it will be adequately destroyed?"

      They can watch as he sets to work with his sledgehammer.

  2. Third party by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see they've hired some 3rd party firm to do it. That stuff, both kit and data will turn up in a year or so's time. Guaranteed. Laptops on eBay and the data sold to ID thieves.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Third party by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Actually, no. I'm just going to run DBAN on the servers, single pass zeroes.

      My original quote was a 20 stack of writeable CDs and 2 days time... £500 max. They told me that wasn't the way bidding for government contracts work, so I said £400k.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  3. No surprise by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is the normal way the Tory Party does things. Services that the government could provide are actually business opportunities for private companies. Instead of just having IT wipe the disks why not make an easy £400k for one of your friends in the city?

    Of far more concern is the NHS. Why let the NHS perform an operation that could be making some private company some profit?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:No surprise by Mike+Mentalist · · Score: 0

      This is the normal way the Tory Party does things. Services that the government could provide are actually business opportunities for private companies. Instead of just having IT wipe the disks why not make an easy £400k for one of your friends in the city?

      Of far more concern is the NHS. Why let the NHS perform an operation that could be making some private company some profit?


      "Having IT wipe the disks" is not the way to do this.

      --
      I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
    2. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty certain there are those in the Conservative party that would love to outsource most of the NHS. The thing stopping them is that the NHS is a sacred cow.

    3. Re:No surprise by Tim+C · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Personally as a UK citizen I'd much rather they paid someone who knew what they were doing to do it properly than just "wiped the disks".

      For a start, you do realise that for data like this destruction of the physical storage medium is a requirement, right? (It's right there in the article)

    4. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you read TFA you'll see Labour pissed away £330m on ID cards, so 400K is peanuts by comparison. Also, the same "friends in the city" were the people labour spent that money with.

    5. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As opposed to Labour, who'd set up an organisation for it overseen by a committee with 3 layers of management, and then lose it on a train later? The Tories are arses, but they're nowhere near as putrid as the last lot. This thing was designed to scale up to the whole UK population of 60 million. It's likely they've got to close down an entire data centre.

    6. Re:No surprise by slim · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty certain there are those in the Conservative party that would love to outsource most of the NHS. The thing stopping them is that the NHS is a sacred cow.

      They're effectively working on that right now. GPs are being given the "choice" to do their own admin, so they'll outsource their admin to private companies. Rawnsley said on the radio only this week that there's "no reason why NHS GPs should be civil servants".

    7. Re:No surprise by Arlet · · Score: 2

      For a start, you do realise that for data like this destruction of the physical storage medium is a requirement, right? (It's right there in the article)

      1. Pick up servers
      2. Drop in industrial shredder
      3. ???
      4. Profit 400.000 pounds

    8. Re:No surprise by X.25 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally as a UK citizen I'd much rather they paid someone who knew what they were doing to do it properly than just "wiped the disks".

      For a start, you do realise that for data like this destruction of the physical storage medium is a requirement, right? (It's right there in the article)

      Obviously, reliable destruction of data costs 400,000 GBP, right?. Please, don't be silly. It's really amusing how people are trying to justify silly things politicians are obviously doing to setup cash for their cronies.

      Do you know how seized drugs are often destroyed?

      Blast furnace.

      Please tell me which data storage medium will survive blast furnace?

      And then tell me what can possibly cost 400,000 GBP.

      For 400,000 GBP I can build a whole damn system which will reliably destroy data.

    9. Re:No surprise by Mike+Mentalist · · Score: 1

      Obviously, reliable destruction of data costs 400,000 GBP, right?. Please, don't be silly. It's really amusing how people are trying to justify silly things politicians are obviously doing to setup cash for their cronies.

      Do you know how seized drugs are often destroyed?

      Blast furnace.


      And old tampons are flushed down the toilet. Chalk and cheese.

      --
      I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
    10. Re:No surprise by X.25 · · Score: 1

      And old tampons are flushed down the toilet. Chalk and cheese.

      So, you are implying that data storage medium should not be destroyed reliably in blast furnace because... they're not the same as drugs?

      Thus, it's wiser to spend 400,000 GBP to destroy them by doing exactly what?

    11. Re:No surprise by X.25 · · Score: 1

      "Having IT wipe the disks" is not the way to do this.

      And since you seem to know all about data destruction, please tell us what is the right way to do it.

      Thanks.

    12. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can see why. Many European countries have independent GPs. None have the crazy health costs that the US has. Overall health isn't that much worse than they're in the UK, and when you focus on the neighborhood (France, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands) they do better than the UK in fact.

      One of the reasons for this is that GPs treat a large number of patients, with common afflictions. Statistics ensures that this has predictable volumes, and also predictable costs. In a sense, they're like band-aids. You can manage on numbers alone. Specialized rare health care is harder to manage on an economic base, which is why closer government oversight could be desired.

    13. Re:No surprise by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And old tampons are flushed down the toilet. Chalk and cheese.

      A blast furnace will turn steel into molten steel. Drugs, old tampons, cheese, computer hard disks, CDs, printed papers, flash drives, paper tape, Hollerith cards; they will all be completely destroyed.

      Not sure about the chalk though.

      The GPs right, there's no way this can possibly justify £400,000. You on the other hand are full of shit.

    14. Re:No surprise by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Yes. After 13 years of Labour, the nation forgot how destructive and corrupt the Tories are. I can't see them lasting more than one term. As it is they need propping up by the Lib-dems.

    15. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he means is they're underpaid and trusted to just about work with the machines/repair faults but not wipe them as many leaks have shown before.

      pay them properly, make their jobs actually worth what they are worth to the company (seriously how would you get anything done without your machines? what is it worth to you to not have your data exposed?) and less disgruntled IT staff will end up pulling crap on the side.

    16. Re:No surprise by Mike+Mentalist · · Score: 1

      So, you are implying that data storage medium should not be destroyed reliably in blast furnace because... they're not the same as drugs?

      Thus, it's wiser to spend 400,000 GBP to destroy them by doing exactly what?


      No, I am implying that drugs and this data are vastly different things with completely and utterly different consequences attatched to them. Therefore saying that because destroying drugs has X cost destroying this data properly should cost X.

      --
      I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
    17. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to physically unrack every server, remove all of the drives in every server and then securely transport them to a disposal site where they are thrown into a giant shredder. Every batch of drives is tracked during the entire process and a certificate of secure disposal is produced for every batch which is destroyed.

      The physical removal will be a team of between five and ten guys working for a couple of days (there's a lot of kit), at multiple sites around the UK. Add transport from those sites to the disposal site, which is multiple trips even if you're only destroying just the drives (& they're planing to destroy the servers, too), plus the cost of actually destroying all of the physical kit in a controlled manner.

      This sort of stuff is done by specialised companies, because your mate Dave doesn't know how to handle a secure disposal to UK Government standards and isn't certified to do it anyway. For once the UK Government is actually doing things right and doing it at a reasonable price, believe it or not.

    18. Re:No surprise by Mike+Mentalist · · Score: 2

      And since you seem to know all about data destruction, please tell us what is the right way to do it.

      It isn't simply about destroying the data, it's about making sure it is documented and verified. Same way that a small screw on an aeroplane will cost far more than the one you get in the shop even though they are same thing.

      --
      I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
    19. Re:No surprise by malkavian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, I spot someone that's never dealt with systems at the high end.
      There's a lot of prep work to unpicking things, and removing servers from secure areas, auditing them, planning to have them securely transferred and held in areas that are inaccessible with heavy physical security.
      Logged/scanned to provide proof of transit, vetting everyone who handles the data volumes. Ensuring you have all sources of the data, auditing the backups, and pulling all of those, so on, so forth.
      Everyone involved in this process will have to be security audited (most likely taken from an existing group of vetted people), and their services carry a premium.
      There is a huge difference between destroying the data on your home gaming machine, and the sheer detail involved in transport and destruction of sensitive governmental machines.
      £400k is actually a pretty lean number for dismantling the structure of this old project, considering that the infrastructure was sufficient to handle the predicted scale out to cover the entire UK population.

    20. Re:No surprise by Dan1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You clearly do not grasp the sheer idiocy, incompetence and utter lack of any skills whatsoever which characterises the British civil service. These days there IS no IT department apart from the outsourced PFI numpties who charge for each and every action performed. This is why whole database dumps get transferred all over the place; there isn't anyone who has the handy database skills to run a quick SQL query and put out only the required data into a twin-key encrypted package, because the way the PFI deal was written every such action costs the Government money.

      Add to this the last Government had a number of highly embarrassing incidents of data loss, where USB sticks were let on trains, and in one case CD-ROMs of sensitive data were encrypted, but the password for the encryption was written onto the media disks themselves. The civil servants were complying with the regulations, but doing so in such a way that no hassle over passwords would occur. The same civil servants that did this are still employed, and the UK Home Office (which is dealing with this data) has the reputation of being the dumping ground for all the most incompetent, most useless and most stupid civil servants in Government.

      Outsourcing data disposal like this is the safest way to ensure complete destruction without any little unofficial backups being taken and sold on, or people "forgetting" to wipe the disks before ebaying them, and so on. 400K is peanuts compared to the cost of cleanup after a data leak.

    21. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While they're not exactly anyone's first choice, every single Tory government since the war has had to clean up the mess Labour left behind. And the barefaced corruption of the last Labour government that you so quickly excuse is easily the worst in living memory. They'll probably get a 2nd term purely based on how awful the alternative is.

    22. Re:No surprise by squizzar · · Score: 2

      In line with some of the posters below: Presumably this mythical IT department has other stuff to do. I know governments are inefficient, but still I reckon you'd be taking a bunch of people away from other necessary work. Secondly, which IT department? I'd guess there are many IT departments that operate for the different parts of the government, you think anyone is going to give their people over to a project outside their remit for free? Do you take on staff to do the job, leaving yourself the difficulty of getting rid of them afterwards?

      I think the government wastes money as much as the next guy, but in this case it looks like a reasonable figure (contrasted with the projected - and undoubtedly massively underestimated - costs of the ID card scheme) for the work required, and the most efficient way to do it is to hire some people who have the equipment, experience and expertise to do the job. So long as the contracts are written properly (e.g. fixed time and money, some reasonable method of ensuring that the company doesn't walk off with the cash having done no work etc. etc) then what's the problem. That's the only area that should be under scrutiny, but the only people that ever seem to look at that side of things are Private Eye...

    23. Re:No surprise by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      And then tell me what can possibly cost 400,000 GBP.

      What costs this much? A few months of a couple of "security consultants" off the approved suppliers list, for a start. Billed at the usual rate for government jobs. It will take them at least that amount of time to attend the meetings, write the proposals, agree the process, appoint the auditors, find all the copies (except for a few which will later leak out), benchmark some data destruction methodologies and finally outsource the whole mess to the lowest bidder who will take the data and fly-tip it somewhere close-by.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    24. Re:No surprise by TheoGB · · Score: 2

      I like the circular notion of documenting the disposal of someone's personal information.

      "No Mr. Smith, your data was fully deteled. I have the document right here to prove it: 'Mr. A. R. Smith, born 17th Feb 1963, married to Mrs. C. J. Smith, degree from Cambridge, DNA sample number 0900303093029298992,' etc., etc. and here at the bottom, 'Deleted' and it's stamped by three separate officers. Yes sir, your data has definitely been destroyed."

    25. Re:No surprise by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2

      They dont have the right equipment, nor hold the appropriate certification, to perform secure data destruction.

      The right way to go about a *specialist* task is to hire the appropriate *specialists* in their field. Not general IT staff who have neither the time, qualification or equipment to do the job properly

    26. Re:No surprise by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2

      So the secure transport is free?

      The time to derack the servers is free? Oh, and the accredited,SC level people just appear on a whim?

      You appear to be dense enough to assume it is all about the final step. It isnt.

    27. Re:No surprise by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Shredding them - as is supposed to be done with all old public computer storage devices in the UK - and that is just part of the process.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    28. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      finally outsource the whole mess to the lowest bidder who will take the data and fly-tip it somewhere close-by.

      For the eleventh billion time in this thread: no. The companies involved in transporting and destroying the hardware must be certified. They must be certified to ensure that exact situation does not happen. That certification costs money, and hence the services of certified companies costs money.

      While we're at it, a certified company can't just take the drives and dump them somewhere, because the entire process requires complete documentation and certification to prove the drives were destroyed, at an approved disposal site. In case you hadn't figured it out already, those approved disposal sites also need to spend money to become approved, and therefore their services cost more money.

    29. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, i'd ejaculate them all over your beautiful face.

    30. Re:No surprise by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Not really, all you need is a certificate that the data cannot be recovered. DBAN it and resell it on e-bay. Even if they physically destroyed the disks, they're probably getting the whole set of computers, laptops, network equipment etc. from those offices - remove the hard drive, plug a new one in, sell on e-bay. There are services out there that do physical data destruction for free if you donate the computers.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    31. Re:No surprise by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      ??? isn't quite good enough, since you missed more than one required step. And a "we did something" isn't good enough. Sure you could likely destroy it for less money if you removed all the red tape.

      But do you want the government to have requirements and standards and documentation for such things? Or do you want them to just say "yeah, we deleted it. Trust us"?

    32. Re:No surprise by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If you think that adds up to nearly half a million pounds, you're a cretin.

    33. Re:No surprise by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Paperwork is all routine and doesn't actually cost all that much. The actual physical work is done by minimum wage employees after some basic training.

    34. Re:No surprise by X.25 · · Score: 1

      It isn't simply about destroying the data, it's about making sure it is documented and verified. Same way that a small screw on an aeroplane will cost far more than the one you get in the shop even though they are same thing.

      Ah, I see. So, the procedures used for destruction of drugs are not good enough? I mean, it doesn't get documented and drugs are obviously not destroyed good enough.

      But I am sure that private cronie company is much better in documentation and following strict procedures than a law enforcement agency.

      I see. Your logic is flawless.

      You still didn't answer me - how is the data then supposed to be destroyed "correctly", according to you?

    35. Re:No surprise by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I spot someone that's never dealt with systems at the high end.
      There's a lot of prep work to unpicking things, and removing servers from secure areas, auditing them, planning to have them securely transferred and held in areas that are inaccessible with heavy physical security.
      Logged/scanned to provide proof of transit, vetting everyone who handles the data volumes. Ensuring you have all sources of the data, auditing the backups, and pulling all of those, so on, so forth.
      Everyone involved in this process will have to be security audited (most likely taken from an existing group of vetted people), and their services carry a premium.
      There is a huge difference between destroying the data on your home gaming machine, and the sheer detail involved in transport and destruction of sensitive governmental machines.
      £400k is actually a pretty lean number for dismantling the structure of this old project, considering that the infrastructure was sufficient to handle the predicted scale out to cover the entire UK population.

      Oh my goodness! This sounds just like a job for a fucking law-enforcement agency, and not a crony private company.

      I am shocked!

    36. Re:No surprise by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Blast furnace may be used some of the time, but often it's a simple bonfire. Cheaper for sure. Less safe for those tending it as well, but a budget is a budget.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    37. Re:No surprise by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Since you obviously you have detailed knowledge or our secret procedures. I regret to inform you that I am required to kill you.

      Yors sincerely
      Mr A. Hitman, 003.5

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    38. Re:No surprise by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2

      After 13 months of Tory rule, you have forgotten the Labour party's previous practices.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    39. Re:No surprise by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. Data destruction is a standard task for most IT departments. What company doesn't want its data wiped when disposing of PCs?

      It is also fairly easy, easier in fact for the IT department than an external company. The IT department should know where the data has been saved, where the backups are etc. Ideally it should be encrypted too in which case destroying the key is the first step. After that the usual multi-pass wiping and optionally a degauss and physical media destruction for HDDs. Optical discs can be shredded, or you can get special drives with an erase capability.

      The IT department should already be doing this. If they are not then they are inadequate data security.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:No surprise by SausageOfDoom · · Score: 1

      The underpants gnomes stare at you in disgust.

    41. Re:No surprise by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      And yet there probably will be a leak anyways. Makes you wonder whether all that trouble is actually worth it...

    42. Re:No surprise by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      May I?

      How to destroy data correctly:

      1. announce that your web access filters will be disabled for a few days due to upgrade.
      2. give the HDs to destroy to your staff as "old drives for backup purposes"
      3. wait two days.

      The drives will be by then filled with porn and malware. Of course this is nowhere near a multi pass wiping but the staff will guard their new hd closely, so...

      4. profit!!!

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    43. Re:No surprise by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Licensing fees usually aren't so trivial, inspections usually aren't so trivial. Liability probably isn't so trivial.

      If it was then someone would have bid less, surely?

    44. Re:No surprise by Arlet · · Score: 1

      If it was then someone would have bid less, surely?

      Nah, somebody bidding less than 400k would be considered unreliable.

    45. Re:No surprise by sjames · · Score: 1

      Blast furnace or massive industrial shredder doesn't make much difference (the shredder may be cheaper). The expensive part is hiring well vetted people to remove the drives from the machines and inventory them accurately, secure transport to the destruction facillity and maintaining the audit trail that shows each removed drive ended up in the shredder AND that the drives removed and shredded were all of the drives that contained that data. It would be a shame to do all of that and then have the un-audited replicated storage go up on ebay.

      The big un-necessary cost is the lost prorated value of the drives.

    46. Re:No surprise by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No. Labour were bad. Tories are ten times worse.

  4. I can do it for 20. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Select All > Delete!

    JUST PRESS CTRL+A, then mash the delete key. Press enter to confirm. DONE.

    $20 please.

    1. Re:I can do it for 20. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shows what you know.

      You have to empty the Recycle Bin!

  5. Coalition Government? by djdevon3 · · Score: 1

    What they call coalition government we call bipartisanship, right?

    1. Re:Coalition Government? by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 1

      Sort of. There's more than two sides to be agreeing or disagreeing in the UK and other European countries.

      --
      We are all God's parents.
    2. Re:Coalition Government? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 5, Informative

      What they call coalition government we call bipartisanship, right?

      No, it's a coalition government - rule by more than one party in the same cabinet/government. Quite common in Europe, unheard of in the states (though you do have cohabitation between a president and a congress or senate hostile to them quite often).

      A true coalition in the States would have (for example) Obama appointing Dick Cheney or Ron Paul as his vice-president, and working with him day to day and appointing advisers from other parties, but the systems are so different that it's hard to compare. Typically a coalition is made up of one large party and one or more small ones to make up the numbers, so in the strongly bipartisan system of the states, it's unlikely to happen.

    3. Re:Coalition Government? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      sorry, for bipartisan in that last sentence, read bipartate...

    4. Re:Coalition Government? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. To have a coalition government, you need more than two parties. It is one of the outcomes when no single party manages to gain an overall majority. In this case, the largest party was the Conservatives, the second largest was Labour, and the third-largest the Liberal Democrats, with a smattering of smaller parties and independents. The government was formed by a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Prime Minister is the head of the Conservative Party, the Deputy Prime Minister is the head of the Liberal Democrat Party, and the cabinet is made up from members of both parties. Government policy is driven by both parties, although more by the Conservatives.

      Another alternative in this situation would be a minority government, where the Conservatives (with the largest bloc) attempted to form a government by themselves, but had to persuade members of other parties to vote with them or abstain for every issue they wanted passed. This is a bit fragile: last time it happened in the UK, it only lasted a few months before a vote of no confidence in the government passed, triggering a general election.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Coalition Government? by aslate · · Score: 1

      I thought I'd add the caveat that whilst it's quite common in Europe it's highly unusual in the UK, with only a few instances of a coalition government forming and even fewer where it has actually lasted a substantial period of time.

      No idea whether the current one is going to ride the next year's worth of pain and come out the other side or not.

    6. Re:Coalition Government? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Early on the Vice President job went to the Presidential candidate with the second most votes. Sadly, the Founders seem to have envisioned a political system with no parties, but they surfaced nonetheless. Having a President and a Vice President from different parties caused too many problems though so the system was changed. We're actually in our fifth party system, the current one starting in the 30s under the New Deal.

      Congress is made up of multiple parties, but voters here in the US tend to think there are only two. There are two independents in the Senate, none in the House, and currently no other parties represented. However, the Green Party, Constitutional Party, and Libertarian Party have substantial followings.

      All that to say correct that we're not a coalition. Voters seem to make sure of that every election.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    7. Re:Coalition Government? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      See Australia for a good example of where coalition government is relatively common. In practice, Australia is thought of as having two major parties (like the US), but one of those parties is in fact two parties (Liberals and Nationals) in a coalition. Usually just referred to as 'the Coalition'. The other large party is actually a single party (Labor), although they kinda operate in an informal coalition with the Greens.

      I've lived in both Australia and the US for a long time and I must say the #1 flaw in the US system is that it is engineered in such a way that it makes a two-party state almost unavoidable. The Westminster parliamentary system though (UK, Australia, Canada, NZ etc) encourages third and fourth parties (and independents) to a greater extent, and allows them to have a valuable role even if they only comprise a couple of seats in Parliament. It encourages formal coalitions between parties, as well as informal cooperation. Proportional representation as exists in Australia also means voters have more choice (they can vote for a minor party, and that vote will actually mean something, not just be wasted).

      I think the difference in the systems also has a role in explaining why US politics seems to be "two extreme viewpoints screaming at each other", compared to "multiple viewpoints reaching a middle ground/compromise" as is more common in other Western democracies.

    8. Re:Coalition Government? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Note that Australia currently has a minority government as described above. And by the slimmest of margins: 74 Liberal/National seats vs 76 'Labor + several random independents' seats.

      Essentially, if even a single Labor member (or Labor-aligned independent) votes against the party line on a single vote, the Government loses. A very fragile, and very uncommon situation. I will be surprised if it lasts the full 3 years until the next election is due.

    9. Re:Coalition Government? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Or a war. The National Government that formed for the Second World War was a coalition, for instance, but of all parties in the House.

    10. Re:Coalition Government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US politics isn't extremist in any way. Extreme right and left voters are already decided, they'll vote democrat or republican to keep the other guy out. So each party becomes more and more centrist to attract undecided voters. They're damn near the same party at this point.

      The two stances aren't right and left, they're incumbent and opposition.

      Proportional representation encourages compromise once the votes are in and tends towards sensible and level-headed governments, but doesn't force parties to water down their views. So you end up having the whole political spectrum represented.

  6. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The software won't be destroyed, it'll just get completed (no doubt in a half assed way all public sector software is) and sold to "emerging democracies"

    All that tax payers money will have developed a product the tax payers will never use, and never get a return on. No not even tax, as they'll avoid taxes and be let off by the government as all big business seems to be allowed these days.

    It's a fucking disgrace.

    1. Re:Of course... by malkavian · · Score: 2

      Interesting. So you're an expert on Public sector software.
      Some of it is a travesty, yes. An awful lot of it is actually pretty decent. And some of the internally developed stuff is absolutely top notch.
      I work in the NHS, and the amount of stuff I've had to turn down from commercial vendors because they frankly don't have a clue is astonishing. Stuff written by places like medical physics departments go into the devices that actually get used front line in medical equipment.

      Interesting to see you're so sure that the software will get written anyway.. Where did you hear that? With sources? Or are you merely posting hot air?
      With the current cuts in the UK, if something isn't actually proven necessary, it's in great danger of vanishing (and speaking of someone on the inside of that, it's not always a bad thing). This project is as dead as the dodo. The work to date is a writeoff, with no new investment.
      If you really want to gripe about something, complain about the idiots who started the whole venture, despite being told by everyone who really knew about these things that the whole thing was unworkable, ineffective, costly and a complete waste of money. Every thing it was ever justified as fixing was debunked in a thoroughly methodical manner. Yet still they insisted on starting it up.
      Idiots.

    2. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there's a reason why I'm posting anonymously isn't there.

      Let's just leave it at that eh?

    3. Re:Of course... by rich_r · · Score: 1
      Oooh, you're Andy Coulson, AICMFP.

      Or possibly Walter Mitty.

    4. Re:Of course... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The rankling thing about the ID card project (apart from the masses of irrelevant and intrusive data it was to collect) was that the outgoing Labour government said it was "self financing". So, does the financing fairy come along and sprinkle some pixie dust around, and as if by magic the hundreds of millions needed show up?

      No, what they mean is ID cards were to be paid for by those who hold them. Given that the cards were to eventually be compulsory, how is this different from having cards given out for "free" but paid by general taxation? It doesn't (in fact it makes it worse since now they would have needed a completely new payment infrastructure to handle the payments from 60 million people who are compelled by law to buy a card).

  7. If they send me the data and drives by maroberts · · Score: 1

    I will be happy to light a large bonfire for half of the £400k quoted.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  8. They need prvate contractors by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

    They need private contractors. Government officials are not capable of wiping their own arses, let alone data.

    1. Re:They need prvate contractors by Nineteen-Delta · · Score: 1

      That's where all the taxpayer money goes. - half to set up the comittee to decide, then 7/16ths to find contractors to tender for the job. Then the last few thousand actually gets spent on the labour of destrying the data - which would fit on a few hard drives at most, it goes in the crusher, and job is done in ten minutes. Its about time that someone responsible did the job themselves, and saved £400,000 - you could even do it by destrying the data and preserving the media, so the drives can be recycled.

    2. Re:They need prvate contractors by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Come from pretty hefty positions in the private sector (where I was deemed more than sufficient to do what I do), and now work in the NHS (ethical/personal reasons), I can assure you there are a goodly many people who are very capable (some who hands down beat people I've met in the private sector) in the Governmental arena.
      Yes, there are some "dead weight" ones. But that happens anywhere with strong union presence.

    3. Re:They need prvate contractors by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Interesting. This is based on what personal experience of yours? And what role did you have in the plan?
      I can guarantee you that for something of this scale and sensitivity, £400k is a drop in the ocean.
      I'm actually pretty impressed with that figure.

    4. Re:They need prvate contractors by forgot_my_nick · · Score: 3, Funny

      > They need private contractors. Government officials are not capable of wiping their own arses, let alone data.
      Who let you out of the Daily Mail comments section?

      --
      Cultist of the Average Middle-Aged Ones
    5. Re:They need prvate contractors by malkavian · · Score: 1

      For the comment on 'fit on a few hard drives at most', do a quick capacity plan.
      This was intended to scale for about 60 million people. With all the data stored (pictures, other biometrics, text etc), think about 1 meg per person (probably more with other things like audit trails, update trails, historical info etc.).
      Gives you about 60,000 GB of data. Add in indexes (can be close to data sizes) for about 1.2 PB.
      Add in redo log sizes, backup sizes etc and you're definitely into the several PB range.
      Now there's redundancy to be taken into account. Say 4 datacentres, fully redundant and replicated. Definitely into the tens of PB and higher.
      Now, for speed of databases, these disks are going to be about 70GB each in raid config (either 6 or 10, so some in the arrays will be 'wasted' for resilience).
      When you do the math, you realise you're actually going to be taking thousands of disks from several sites, auditing the pick up, movement and security of each platter by security vetted personnel, and then doing the crusher loading, ensuring each of the drives going in is one of the drives that was in a server at the start (to ensure the disks don't "go missing").

      For full security, no you can't reuse the disks. That's not a valid 'Sensitive' data destruction method. You don't want the "I think it's gone" quote. You want to know it's gone. Full stop. Nobody gets it back. Ever.

      You're paying for the whole thing. £400k isn't a bad figure at all. Probably in the region of less than £100 per disk for dismantling, transport, audit and destruction. That's a good commercial rate for the service.

    6. Re:They need prvate contractors by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Gives you about 60,000 GB of data. Add in indexes (can be close to data sizes) for about 1.2 PB

      2 times 60,000 GB is only 0.12 PB.

    7. Re:They need prvate contractors by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      They need private contractors to do this so when the data turns up later they can blame the contractor ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    8. Re:They need prvate contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Add in indexes

      Indices! There are no such things as "indexes".

    9. Re:They need prvate contractors by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Indexes and indices are different things (at least in my part of the world).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    10. Re:They need prvate contractors by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are some "dead weight" ones. But that happens anywhere with strong union presence.

      In non-union shops, the dead weight doesn't go away, it just tends to fail up or becomes part of someone's headcount in middle management turf wars.

    11. Re:They need prvate contractors by sjames · · Score: 1

      1000GB = 1TB, NOT 1 PB!

      So about 60 TB for the raw data and lets go nutz and say the audit trails quadruple it to 240 TB.

      That is thousands of 70GB drives (based on the principle that teeny over-priced SCSI drives are commonly used in this application for some reason when enterprise grade SAS drives in the 500GB range would work fine).

      If you must actually destroy them, the pricing to do so is reasonable. However, a secure wipe will also destroy the data. If the drives are then re-deployed in other secure projects they'll still end up shredded eventually and the shreds will be well overwritten by then. The difference is that they will provide considerably more useful service before being shredded.

      We hear all the time about heroic efforts to lift data off of a secure wiped drive necessitating physical destruction, but we DON'T hear about those heroic measures actually ever retrieving any data. The data leaks always trace back to much more mundane issues like left the laptop on a subway or a big batch of un-erased backup tapes sent to the wrong place.

  9. You had to join to get a passport. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had to join to get a passport. Try telling your boss that you can't go to the customer because you will have to put your data in the NIR.

    1. Re:You had to join to get a passport. by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      No you didnt. The NIR had nothing to do with the passport service.

  10. The usual disposal method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    £400k is still expensive. Why don't they do what they usually do? Just stick it all on a laptop and leave it at a train station...

  11. The usual method by shinigami+sama · · Score: 0

    Four hundred grand!? Why not do what they usually do? Put the data on a laptop and leave it at a train station...

  12. Oh nooooo by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

    "For 400,000 GBP I can build a whole damn system which will reliably destroy data." Are you contemplating
    installing Windows ?

  13. Absurd by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Chuck the disks in the ocean to a depth of say 17,000 feet. Should cost 5 grand tops.

  14. I'll do it for free! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I get reimbursed by the customer for the data anyway.

    C'mon, you don't think that whoever does it for these peanuts isn't gonna do that too, do you?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. PC LOAD LETTER by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there another way to destroy the data?

    (Taking it out to a field and sledgehammering it?)

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  16. Ask Einstein... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Data cannot be created nor destroyed!

  17. Really for £400K by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone think of just taking a couple of 50Gallons oil drums fill them with gas and shredded old tires put the drives in them and let these burn for a while; I realized that this does not sit well with many people due to the fact that it's bad for the environment. The other solution just melt all the data drives down along with a bunch of steels.

  18. Melt it by mangu · · Score: 1

    There's those specialist industrial shredders designed just for disk drives that reduce them to a small heap of granules.

    A cheaper alternative would be a flowerpot and some charcoal. Or they could send them to a commercial aluminium recycler to make it look more profesional.

  19. Now for the backups by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    £100 to destroy the data, £399,900 to hunt down all the backup tapes, memory sticks, cloud storage, DVDs and laptop copies made by low-level functionaries.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  20. I wanna do it :-) by buzzsawddog · · Score: 1

    Heh... I would do it for next to nothing. Just buy me a ticket over the pond, give me a week in a nice hotel with food paid for then get me back home. Cant be more than a few thousand. And I could guarantee distruction too :-D

  21. Yes you did. £35 went to register you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes you did. £35 went to register you. Idiot.

  22. Have they heard of databases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did they do? carve it into granite...

    I know much of this government and it's agencies are still stuck using old proprietary and insecure systems like windows (check out france), but £400k seems ridiculous... surely if it was compiled and stored with computers it would be cheaper to simply gather all of the physical equipment and incinerate that shit.

  23. "only £400,000"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That seems to be missing the 5 billion pounds that was spent collecting it...

  24. Sigh, what about the COST of the DESTROYED items by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    If I destroy equipment NOT only do I have to pay for the destruction but for the write-off for the equipment.

    If I blow up your car the cost to you is NOT 1 stick of dynamite. It is the stick of dynamite, the cost of your car, the bill for the fire department and the kick up your arse for failing so badly at cost calculation.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  25. Cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We found a box of very old back up tapes and the government bureaucracy required to destroy them was insane! The tapes where so old the equipment no long existed or was manufactured. But since the label indicated it might have some personnel data backed we needed to prove what the contented where - weeks later tracking down 30 year old equipment we found it did in fact contained significant personnel data. Well that just opened up another can of worms - confirm the data was still needed or not, if we had to inform the individuals, etc. Three months later we could officially destroy them. So the bidding process started, evaluations of the bids, confirmation the data was correctly destroyed. 25 tapes that where 30 years old took nearly 2000 man hours and thousands in hard ware cost (that was used once), plus disposal cost.

  26. Volcano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just throw this stuff in a volcano? If it's good enough for the One Ring, it should be good enough for some hard drives.

  27. Re:Sigh, what about the COST of the DESTROYED item by Arlet · · Score: 1

    If I destroy equipment NOT only do I have to pay for the destruction but for the write-off for the equipment.

    The TFA mentions the sum of 400k GBP only for the destruction of the data. I would expect the equipment write-off to be a separate sum, probably bigger.

  28. reasonable by DaveGod · · Score: 1

    I don't have the breakdown but (and I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt) the £400k should cover far more than pressing delete on a database. There's destroying the storage medium, security to make sure nobody's walking out with data... Not forgetting the costs of actually dismantling equipment, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are significant figures for an early property lease termination penalty, dilapidations and staff redundancies.

    To digress a little, no it is not uncommon for staff employed at one governmental organisation to be paid a tax-free redundancy even when immediately re-employed at another.

    Anyway, the main reason £400k is considered surprisingly small is because what frequently happens when a UK governmental project is scrapped is that there is a contractor somewhere due to be paid a fortune in "lost profits". While such arrangements are common in business, the level of compensation usually seems grossly inflated for government contracts, even allowing for the large scale. It's generally thought this is due to a combination of politicians/civil servants behave rather less cautiously when committing public money; supplier companies being all-too aware of the probability of cancellations of government projects and/or what everybody really thinks: because it becomes that much less likely the politician's pet project will be scrapped no matter how hated. That's not to forget fraud and under-the-table deals, but habit in the UK is not to attribute politicians with true malice what can be explained by arrogance and incompetence.

  29. Paper shredder for hard drives by stimpleton · · Score: 1
    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  30. Invoice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i) Pressing 'delete' key - £1.00
    ii) Knowing where to find delete key - £399,999.00

  31. meanwhile... by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    Chances are because they held onto it, someone has already sold that data to the highest bidder. Thieves love that stuff.

    Or someone will screw up and throw it it a garbage can. meanwhile... Thieves will get it.

    Or! They already have a copy of all of those IDS stashed, and a few years from now, they find the copies, and someone will be asking this same question all over again. It will cost them $1,000,000.00 extra to get rid of it. Meanwhile... Thieves will still get it.

    They are so screwed. /s

  32. Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never thought it takes £400,000 to run rm *