Slashdot Mirror


Insider-Trading Suspects Smash Hard Drive Evidence

An anonymous reader writes "We all know Slashdotters love debating the best way to wipe a hard drive clean. Looks like tech-savvy Wall Street Hedge Fund managers also know the best way to do it. From the WSJ article: 'Mr. Longueuil's version of that night's events was recorded later, during a December meeting with former colleague Mr. Freeman, who by then was cooperating with the government and recording conversations, according to the U.S. complaint. "F—in' pulled the external drives apart," Mr. Longueuil told Mr. Freeman during their meeting, according to the criminal complaint. "Put 'em into four separate little baggies, and then at 2 a.m. 2 a.m. on a Friday night, I put this stuff inside my black North Face jacket, and leave the apartment and I go on like a twenty block walk around the city and try to find a, a garbage truck and threw the s—t in the back of like random garbage trucks, different garbage trucks four different garbage trucks."'"

364 comments

  1. Hmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps we shouldn't be whining about tech-clueless management after all... This seems like a much worse alternative. On the plus side, he probably didn't even think about the mailserver backups...

    1. Re:Hmm... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Informative

      He probably did. They nuked things like their Crackberry messaging traffic amongst other things at his insistence.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re:Hmm... by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you don't see the body it's not dead. It's physically possible to search the dump and find those drives. The compressor in the truck isn't strong enough to destroy the drive so it should still be readable. It would be very labour intensive but in the current (US) economy that isn't an issue.

    3. Re:Hmm... by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether they actually cracked the drives open and pulled the platters. The article is unfortunately ambiguous on this point; it just refers to them "tearing apart external drives" which may well be them simply pulling the drive from its enclosure.

    4. Re:Hmm... by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 1

      Seriously? With 32,600 (http://www.observer.com/2008/wasted-new-york-citys-giant-garbage-problem) tons of garbage being generated per day, even if we assume 8 pounds of garbage sorted each man hour, that makes it 8.15 million man hours *per day*. That means with 1 million people you might be able to get to those drives in what, a couple of years? Maybe?

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    5. Re:Hmm... by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously? With 32,600 (http://www.observer.com/2008/wasted-new-york-citys-giant-garbage-problem) tons of garbage being generated per day, even if we assume 8 pounds of garbage sorted each man hour, that makes it 8.15 million man hours *per day*. That means with 1 million people you might be able to get to those drives in what, a couple of years? Maybe?

      Simple, we get a big-ass magnet, like one of those they use to pick up cars, spread the garbage out and run the magnet over it. The drives will be picked up by the magnet (along with other metal objects) where they should be much easier to pick out. As a bonus, we can recycle the extra metals.

      (Yes, this is a joke. Please don't bother replying telling me the giant hole in my plan)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:Hmm... by crakbone · · Score: 1

      you only need to search the trash that the trucks have a route in a 30 block radius from where he grabbed the drives, you can even cross match that to the time 2am. and the barge number to the land fill. that would greatly reduce the search area.

    7. Re:Hmm... by s0litaire · · Score: 2

      Not quite correct...
      First they'd know roughly what dump trucks were in the area when the said he dismantled the drives.
      All the trucks have a specific area of the dump (changes daily) to unload.
      So you've narrowed down that 32.6k tons down to a few tens of square yards of rubbish to sift through.
      taking your "couple of years" down to a few days or weeks...

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    8. Re:Hmm... by euyis · · Score: 1

      Damn, can't resist the urge.

      Your plan has a hole: is it really that easy to tell the difference between compressed hard drive and other metal scraps?

    9. Re:Hmm... by moortak · · Score: 1

      8 pounds of garbage per man hour is a wildly low estimate. Hard drives aren't small and are rather noticeable. They can also narrow their search space by knowing which trucks were in the area at that time.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    10. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As they were thumb drives (according to NPR), there were no platters involved. In fact, they used pliers to do the deed.

      Yes, there were some obstruction charges against them.

    11. Re:Hmm... by chemicaldave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends on whether they actually cracked the drives open and pulled the platters. The article is unfortunately ambiguous on this point; it just refers to them "tearing apart external drives" which may well be them simply pulling the drive from its enclosure.

      The article is not ambiguous. Skip to the bottom to see a section of the US attorney's complaint.

      Freeman then remarked, "I don't see how you get rid of this shit," to which LONGUEIL explained, "Oh, it's easy. You take two pairs of pliers, and then you rip it open . . . and then, it's just a piece of NAND."

      More...

      "Fuckin' pulled the external drives apart. Destroyed the platter..."

      That's pretty unambiguous.

    12. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it go through a garbage processing plant where they have strong magnets that pull the metals from the garbage stream for processing?

    13. Re:Hmm... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      (Yes, this is a joke. Please don't bother replying telling me the giant hole in my plan)

      Awww, why'd you do that? Reading the serious responses to posts like yours is half the fun of /.!

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    14. Re:Hmm... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      He ripped the drive apart. He then divided up the parts into 4 bags. Then he tossed them into 4 differnet places on the assumption that different wast companies would take them to different places.

      He also talks about opening usb drives and smashing the NAND chips, destoying e-mail on his blackbery, shredding documents, etc.

      While not the smartest, he is not the dumbest either.

    15. Re:Hmm... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      That is a bit worse than that. If the police already suspected them, they could simply follow the suspect, wait for him to dump the driver at the truk, stop the truck, get the disks without any trouble on getting search arrants or any such thing.

      People think hard about how to destroy data on a disk for a reason.

    16. Re:Hmm... by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 1

      Yes, the number was exaggerated, but the problem is still impossibly immense. When the trucks are full, they go to way-stations where the garbage is pooled. Once that has happened, it is then shipped to some alternate source. Dumping particles on top of each other like that will ensure a relatively random distribution, even if we assume that it wasn't randomized to begin with.

      Once it is picked up at the way-station, then it is sent to a dump where it will be mixed with other debris. Sure, it will not be 32,600 tons of filth to sort, but it will be far from cheap to close the dump (so that nothing new will enter -- something else left out of the original statement) while 1000 people look for a hard drive which will very likely have extraordinarily corrupt data.

      So, while I may have exaggerated, I'll wager you're over-simplifying. I think it far more likely to be something which takes months and costs at least several million dollars to get something which isn't worth it.

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    17. Re:Hmm... by Conditioner · · Score: 0

      The magnets would erase the drives you retard!

    18. Re:Hmm... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Boy..if there's one thing I've learned from watching the Sopranos.....it is to always give your 'friends' a hug when you meet them, before you start talking.

      That way, you can try to feel if they are wearing a wire or not...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Hmm... by meerling · · Score: 1

      You'd be amazed at what data a really skilled data recovery tech with the right gear can pull even in that kind of situation. But it's not cheap.

    20. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno. I tend to hang around higher-class venues, rather than the local dump.... You meet WAY better women that way.

    21. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The compressor in the truck isn't strong enough to destroy the drive so it should still be readable.

      ???
      I've seen one smash a xerox machine.

    22. Re:Hmm... by Danse · · Score: 1

      That is a bit worse than that. If the police already suspected them, they could simply follow the suspect, wait for him to dump the driver at the truk, stop the truck, get the disks without any trouble on getting search arrants or any such thing.

      People think hard about how to destroy data on a disk for a reason.

      Having cops conduct round-the-clock surveillance on a suspect is expensive. It would probably be hard for them to justify the cost for a non-violent crime.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    23. Re:Hmm... by slashdottedjoe · · Score: 2

      Sounds like the platters were taken out. Contamination, including abrasive action occurs immediately at that point. Bouncing down the road in the back of a truck unprotected, those mirror-like platters are going to look like hell.

      A complete drive may be easy to pick out, but a loose and badly damaged platter would look a lot like foil. It would be painstaking to retrieve once the components are no longer a single unit and soiled.

      I always skid my optical media along the concrete before I snap and discard them. How hard would it be to scrap the disks on the concrete in the stairwell before he left the building? Some platter particles are now there, too.

      The data is gone.

    24. Re:Hmm... by Technician · · Score: 2

      His really big mistake was admitting to the destruction in a message that was recordable.

      The proper response is "what drives, I can't find the drives you are talking about." and said no more. There would then be nobody tailing garbage trucks. A useless search for the missing evidence can proceed with little chance of success. Later you can in private on a secure location pass the info of the job is done.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    25. Re:Hmm... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If you don't see the body it's not dead. It's physically possible to search the dump and find those drives. The compressor in the truck isn't strong enough to destroy the drive so it should still be readable. It would be very labour intensive but in the current (US) economy that isn't an issue.

      The idea "enough labor" can do it... is basically equivalent to saying someone put your car keys in a little baggie and hid it somewhere on the shore pf Pensacola beach, told you about it a week later. They didn't give you a clue where along the shoreline they dropped them off, or what the water currents were like at high tide on that day.

      And you think it is definitely possible to find the keys, and use the key fob to open your doors, if you only get enough people on the task of finding them along that massive shoreline and digging through the massive piles of sand offshore that are constantly having new material piled on top .

    26. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a job for the Mechanical Turk. :-)

    27. Re:Hmm... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A lot of areas do not pre-process the garbage before disposing of it. Some do.. Most commonly, where they ship their garbage to another location, likely out of state.

      Or unless it goes to an incinerator.. Then it's preprocessed too.

      Around my parts, garbage goes from curb to truck, to a transfer station where it gets compacted and loaded into a bigger truck, then straight to the landfill.

    28. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tech-savvy Wall Street Hedge Fund managers

      Fuckin' pulled the external drives apart. Destroyed the platter..

      I see the Wall Street job market is always lacking a few good Hoodies.

    29. Re:Hmm... by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Hard drives are tougher than copiers.

    30. Re:Hmm... by Joe+Mucchiello · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter how skilled the tech is. You need to prove the shard of platter came directly from his hard drive. The evidence trail in a junkyard it usually stone cold.

    31. Re:Hmm... by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it unambiguous, as I've heard plenty of people call computers modems, and all other nonsense. Someone calling the actual hard drive after removing it from an external case a platter wouldn't phase me at all. Still, good luck going through the waste of every garbage truck in a major city looking for those specific hard drives.

    32. Re:Hmm... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

      well, you're talking about someone who also didn't ever think about how it's faster to do a 7 pass hard drive wipe than to chop it into pieces and go for a long walk at 2 AM so yeah, most likely. I mean, it's only nicknamed "the DOD method" after the department of defense determine that wipe #7 was when they couldn't do some magnetic something or other to recover any of the info from a magnetic storage device. I'm going to nickname his method the stupid insider trader method lol.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    33. Re:Hmm... by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Strangely, it's rather unlikely that the drives would be erased by even a large magnet powerful enough to pick up a car! It's just not a dense enough magnetic field to do any particular damage to the media.

      The problem isn't the "amount" of magnetism, the problem is that the density of the magnetic field flowing through the disk surface is orders of magnitude less dense than the neodymium electro-magnet floating 1/20th the thickness of a human hair away from the HDD surface. HDD information density is unbelievable, and to achieve these densities, they've had to do some remarkable things with magnets!

      Standard magnets will erase "soft" media, like floppies. But for HDDs, the amount of bit rot due to magnetic fields is going to be minimal in all but extreme cases.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    34. Re:Hmm... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      IIRC the military still insist on physical destruction (IIRC something like grinding the magnetic material off the platters and disolving it in acid) for the important stuff. The secure wipes are only for the low level stuff.

      The problem with wiping drives is the risk that something (e.g. bad sector remapping or a drive misalignment) will mean you don't get to all the data. IIRC there are some extended commands to allow lower level access but can you garantee that your secure wiper will use them and that they will do what they are supposed to?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    35. Re:Hmm... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      They should have been using Denon's patented technology that determines if the magnet is being used to further criminal charges against the hard drive's owners. When such a device detects a magnetic field to sort it from the trash it is hiding in, the patented directional arrows cause the electrons in a field otherwise too weak to wipe the platter to cluster close together and wipe the drive clean of incriminating data.

      Have it installed on your drives now for the bargain price of $499,000,000 per unit.

    36. Re:Hmm... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be too hard. First you disassemble the drives and separate the platters. Second you sand the surface of each platter with coarse (or a mixture of coarse and fine) jewler's rouge. (As a side benefit, it contains ferrous oxide, so any attempt to read will probably destroy the read head.) Then you hit the platters several times with the ball end of a ball-peen hammer. After that use your ingenuity, depending on what tools are available. A metal punch is a nice touch. So is a welding torch. When each disk is in two or more pieces, THEN you throw it in several different garbage trucks. If you're prepared this whole process should take less than a couple of hours (including the throwing it into the garbage trucks). If you walk too the garbage trucks it will take longer.

      N.B.: It's my understanding that these days the platters are metal plated onto glass. I doubt that it's tempered, so be prepared for splinters. And if one of your "tools on hand" is a kiln, you can skip most of the other steps, and just fire the platters.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    37. Re:Hmm... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Hard drives aren't small and are rather noticeable.

      This guy is probably not the only person to have thrown out a broken hard drive in new york though.

    38. Re:Hmm... by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Boy..if there's one thing I've learned from watching the Sopranos.....it is to always give your 'friends' a hug when you meet them, before you start talking.

      That way, you can try to feel if they are wearing a wire or not...

      are you saying the only thing you got from this is that the guy was recorded?

      who's side are you on? if this stuff is going on I would much rather we captured the evidence than go on respecting the privacy of criminals...

      I'm sure someone could take that out of context (and probably will) but I think its fair in this specific context.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    39. Re:Hmm... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I am still trying to work out if he's talking about those doughnut type magnets

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    40. Re:Hmm... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Obviously these crooks still fail to understand computers and likely just managed to gain additional criminal charges. If they are hiding computer based information there is always the other side of communications to consider and if they were corporate, there is the corporate server in between recording everything.

      So getting rid of evidence in a wired world is far harder than people really know, as there isn't just one copy but quite a few of them. Whilst the one local copy most likely has it all in one place for easier investigation, computers are really, really good at accessing multiple sources to put it all back together again.

      In this case, track down all transaction, search all affected corporations for communications to the suspects and you are there, match the communications, to transactions prior to company information releases and you are there. All the evidence is still out there it just needs to be put back together again.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    41. Re:Hmm... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Are we sure he didn't rip the 'drive' apart, put the bezel in one bag, the power board in another bag, the cover in a third and the actual hard drive in the fourth?

    42. Re:Hmm... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Nuke it from orbit!

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    43. Re:Hmm... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      But probably not the hard drive in the copier. If I kick a copier it will be damaged. We had a 2GB Seagate disk that went through much worse (it was used as a pre-flash USB stick. I use Corsair Flash Survivors for the same job now). The seagate was not impressed by falling off a bike multiple times, although it didn't like cola. Harddrives can take a lot of physical abuse.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    44. Re:Hmm... by Cylix · · Score: 1

      The built in secure erase function of SATA disks is superior to any DOD wipe pattern available. The wipe function ignores bad sectors and simply writes out data in random patterns while offsetting the head randomly into neighboring tracks. It also has the advantage of being horribly quick despite massive disk size.

      Now actually getting the secure erase function to work properly is sometimes a bit annoying. You need a kernel, tools, chipset and drive to support the features. Even then it can still be somewhat sporadic due to the fairly new code.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    45. Re:Hmm... by tsa · · Score: 1

      And how do you know which trucks he dropped the drives in?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    46. Re:Hmm... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      How about a huge acid bath?

      I'm sure most slashdotters have the necessary materials in their home laboratories.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    47. Re:Hmm... by nicholas22 · · Score: 1

      And what if the government enforces legislation for trading firms and certain high importance departments to use non-destructible (re-inforced) hard drives? That would probably send a few shivers down a few spines.

    48. Re:Hmm... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Ok, I admit, I do have the needed materials... But just some fire would already do the work.

    49. Re:Hmm... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Worst is, there probably is enough garbage in there to keep the drives intact, from atmospheric effect. I wonder if we combed the
      garbage dumps and got lucky and found one, if it would still be readable. The only way to really undo a drive, is to take out the cylinders and break them....takes about 5 minutes if you know what you are doing.

    50. Re:Hmm... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Only way to be sure.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  2. Destruction of evidence by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have heard of people getting hit with destruction of evidence charges for engaging in this sort of behavior...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Destruction of evidence by commodore6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. To quote the article: "When people frantically begin shredding sensitive documents and deleting computer files and smashing flash drives and chasing garbage trucks at 2 a.m. ... it is not because they have been operating legitimately," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.
      Obviously I disagree.
      I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming. They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    2. Re:Destruction of evidence by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 0

      He just was afraid the feds would find his child porn collection... So nothing nefarious here at all.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't be destruction of evidence if it isn't evidence yet.

    4. Re:Destruction of evidence by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming. They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      Truly sir your tinfoil is 20 mil.

      I don't think the feds care much either about donation to Wikileaks or your desire to use your kitteh to login to your computer.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Destruction of evidence by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 2

      If they can reasonably believe that an investigation is coming, it is still considered destruction of evidence.

      On the other hand, if the warrant is for information about insider trading, your wikileaks project info has a small amount of protection. ... until prosecutors find an excuse to hang a second warrant on.

    6. Re:Destruction of evidence by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2

      Obviously. Obstruction of justice, or whatever, can lead to jail time. But jail time is a far better alternative to having the millions you stole taken back. If they can't prove he stole it, he gets to keep it.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    7. Re:Destruction of evidence by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I just break up old hard disks at desk during work hours.

      Then it's a job related activity and nothing nefarious about it.

      "Not hiding anything Special Agent, just mechanically destroying hard disks per our confidentiality protocols. These glass platters explode nicely when hit with a hammer."

    8. Re:Destruction of evidence by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming.They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      Unfortunately, if you do that you've switched from having done something politically unpopular to committing a clear crime which they can easily convict you. Destroying evidence is very rarely a good move.

    9. Re:Destruction of evidence by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2

      Yeah but that's because they didn't steal enough (or anything at all) to cover the lawyer costs.

    10. Re:Destruction of evidence by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, but, were I in their shoes, I'd have to ask myself:

      1. Does acting strangely (i.e., throwing my hard drives in random garbage trucks) prove my guilt in the case?

      2. If there is evidence on those hard drives that probably would prove my guilt, which is the lesser sentence: obstruction or whatever I'll get charged with if they find smokinggun.jpg on those drives?

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    11. Re:Destruction of evidence by hitmark · · Score: 1

      So he stash them in some fund, and then retires to some sunny place once the jail time is over...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    12. Re:Destruction of evidence by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was evidence the minute it was used to help commit a crime, whether anyone else knew it existed or not.

    13. Re:Destruction of evidence by sureshot007 · · Score: 1

      If you are unaware of the investigation, at what point does it become destruction of evidence? Anytime I have a hard drive failure, it's SOP to physically destroy it before throwing it out. What's to say that one of my drives fails, and I do the usual, and then find out later of an investigation - how can I be held accountable for destruction of evidence?

    14. Re:Destruction of evidence by commodore6502 · · Score: 0

      >>>Truly sir your tinfoil is 20 mil.

      I don't how you can say that given the events happening in Egypt. Or do you think, for some odd reason, that it can't happen in the US? (tons of example deleted)

      Never mind. It wouldn't make any difference, because some people refuse to believe the US is guilty of human rights violations (including extermination camps during the 1940s). No point wasting my breath.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    15. Re:Destruction of evidence by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If you've got evidence that you've committed murder on a drive, and you destroy the drive, the penalty for obstruction is orders of magnitude less than the penalty for a successful murder conviction.

    16. Re:Destruction of evidence by Duradin · · Score: 2

      We had Concentration camps during WWII, but I'd be interested in seeing the sources for Extermination camps during that period.

    17. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Together with his new husband, Bubba.

    18. Re:Destruction of evidence by boristdog · · Score: 1

      Yep. To quote the article: "When people frantically begin shredding sensitive documents and deleting computer files and smashing flash drives and chasing garbage trucks at 2 a.m. ... it is not because they have been operating legitimately," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.
      Obviously I disagree.
      I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming. They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      Well, they would probably be REALLY suspicious of what we do out at my place. My shooting range is littered with hard drives that have been blown to bits by various firearms. Laptop drives, 3.5" desktop drives, old 5" RLL & MFM drives. I even have some old 12" disk packs out there from a previous employer that told me to "get rid of" the old things.

    19. Re:Destruction of evidence by HungryHobo · · Score: 2

      no no. destroying his hard drive is one thing.

      Talking about it. at all. with anyone.
      That's the stupid bit.

      never confess to anything. ever. to anyone.
      Without that all they have is lack of information.

    20. Re:Destruction of evidence by commodore6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>used to help commit a crime

      Prove a crime was committed. (Note that you can't because there's no evidence to review.)

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    21. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you fail to realize that Western culture is more individualistic than Eastern culture which tends to be much more dogmatic and collectivist. America has come a long way and we'll continue to better ourselves by getting rid of the vestigial traits of our Eastern origins. It's a gradual and slow process but you mistakenly think that the advances of society are black and white; that America is supposed to be 100% flawless. And as if we are doomed to failure because we haven't achieved 100% in only 200 years. We're still flawed, but with each passing decade, with each passing generation, we take many steps forward towards our ideals and principles. Yes, sometimes we take a handful of steps backwards too. But the ultimate goal is progress for civilization and even reaching 90% of what we value as a human species won't come today or tomorrow, but many generations from now. Yet in comparison to many Eastern cultures, we do have a significant head-start.

      So don't be so quick to judge a horse who is hundreds of miles from her new destinations, when the other horses are still struggling to leave the derelict barn.

    22. Re:Destruction of evidence by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Informative

      Never mind. It wouldn't make any difference, because some people refuse to believe the US is guilty of human rights violations (including extermination camps during the 1940s). No point wasting my breath.

      Wow! Just wow! They were called Internment Camps, not Extermination Camps. And while it was bad that we forced Japanese Americans into these camps, please do not try to compare them to what Nazi Germany was doing during that same time period. These families were given homes, allowed to move about freely within the camp, they were fed well, their kids went to school, they had activities and entertainment, and were released when it was all said and done.

      Again, I'm not saying it was a good thing, but let's not get carried away and call them Extermination camps.

      Wow!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    23. Re:Destruction of evidence by hldn · · Score: 1

      Destroying evidence is very rarely a good move.

      unless the evidence would be used to convict you of a far greater crime, in which case destroying evidence seems like a rather great idea.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    24. Re:Destruction of evidence by moortak · · Score: 1

      You become responsible when you had a reasonable belief that an investigation was coming. If you destroy it while no one would expect an investigation you aren't guilty of that crime.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    25. Re:Destruction of evidence by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      My understanding(IANAL), is that they would have to demonstrate intent to destroy evidence. See here starting on page 16 and page 64 for a summary of the Federal stuff...

      If you don't know about the investigation, and always destroy hard drives after use, proving the necessary intent would likely be pretty tricky, even if the HDDs sometimes contained evidence of some crime or other. They might well tack it on, just to see if it would stick; but the other evidence would have to be really compelling.

      If there were evidence that your SOP was what it was because you were operating a criminal enterprise and wished to avoid discovery, well, you might have a much clearer problem.

      If you specifically destroy something after you hear about the investigation, you are fucked.

      If you specifically destroy something after a subpoena for that something, double fucked.

    26. Re:Destruction of evidence by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Non-violent, non-repeat criminals typically won't end up in that sort of prison (maximum security federal penitentiary).

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    27. Re:Destruction of evidence by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      >>>used to help commit a crime

      Prove a crime was committed. (Note that you can't because there's no evidence to review.)

      You are assuming he destroyed all evidence, that might not be the case. Then there's the testimony of the informant and whatever incriminating things he said while being taped.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    28. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two words: "Oliver North"

      You can destroy evidence and get away scot free if you have allies in the right places. You might even get your own radio show out of the deal!

    29. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they do. Well if he is JUST giving money to wikileaks it might be ok. But if he engages in several other "suspect", yet completely legal, acts, red flags might start beeping.
      I know I wouldnt want to be the one always pulled over for "random" security checks etc.

    30. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual term is spoliation of evidence, and it carries two penalties: the criminal charge for destroying evidence, and they still get to use the evidence you destroyed against you. So if you destroy a hard drive that has evidence you committed a murder, you have an additional charge of destroying evidence, and the prosecution still gets to say 'the hard drive contained evidence he committed the murder, and he destroyed it to avoid prosecution', and the court can allow that.

    31. Re:Destruction of evidence by Ra+Zen · · Score: 1

      While I agree that US is guilty of many human rights abuses (as are most, if not all, governments in the world), where do you get the idea that the US ran "extermination" camps in the 1940s? There were "internment" camps for citizens of Japanese descent. These camps certainly qualify as human rights abuse, since the individuals were forced to forfeit their property and were then held in detention under poor conditions for several years (which sadly did cause some deaths) for no reason except that their ancestors were from the wrong part of the world. But they hardly qualify as "extermination" camps, especially when compared to Nazi camps during the same period where 6 million people were exterminated.

    32. Re:Destruction of evidence by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't really expect a short-bus-riding window licker to use a five syllable word correctly.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    33. Re:Destruction of evidence by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Yes, HungryHobo has it right. There are a number of things that have happened during my lifetime, which I've not told ANYONE. You don't tell your buddy that you'll take care of things, before, during, or after. You don't tell your wife, your parents, your kids, not even your grandparents when they are on their deathbeds. That's the problem with ANY secret - people want to brag about what they did. They want credit. Phht. The minute you take credit, it's no longer a secret. Need to destroy a hard drive? Wait til 2:00 A.M. open the computer up, take out the drive, put another in it's place, and leave the premises. Destroy that sucker somewhere else. And, NEVER tell anyone! Next day, when the entire office is gossiping about the hard drive that is missing all it's data, you just say, "Huh?" Don't even tell your own great-grandkids about it when YOU are the one who is dying!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    34. Re:Destruction of evidence by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      I have heard of people getting hit with destruction of evidence charges for engaging in this sort of behavior...

      You mean you've heard of people being charged with destruction of evidence for destroying evidence? spooky...

    35. Re:Destruction of evidence by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Please post your mailing address. Next time I need to get rid of a a disk, and I'm really short on time, I'll slap a mailing label on it. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    36. Re:Destruction of evidence by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Yep. To quote the article: "When people frantically begin shredding sensitive documents and deleting computer files and smashing flash drives and chasing garbage trucks at 2 a.m. ... it is not because they have been operating legitimately," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.
      Obviously I disagree.
      I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming. They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      That's not what they are saying at all. The point is that they were acting suspiciously, out of the ordinary, which is circumstantial evidence they were trying to destroy the evidence against them.

      The right to privacy isn't absolute either, that's what a search warrant is : the judge saying it is OK to invade your privacy because there is reasonable cause to do so. If you are worried about that you should encrypt the disk so giving access becomes a matter of self-incrimination (if your country protects against that, many don't.)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    37. Re:Destruction of evidence by drummerboybac · · Score: 1

      Depending on what that evidence is there, we're not talking white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're talking federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison.

    38. Re:Destruction of evidence by spun · · Score: 1

      Destroying hard drives is nothing like fighting Nazis. The US Federal government is not a tyranny. Fighting government is a bad idea when you live in a free democratic country, it is far less efficient at getting the changes you want implemented without horrific unintended consequences.

      Who said anything about a warrantless unconstitutional search? You seem to live in a heroic fantasy novel, where you are the brave hero fighting the world destroying powers of evil. It's a bit egotistical, narcissistic, and juvenile. I'm also guessing you aren't married. You seem to have very little experience with that mainstay of real human relationships: compromise.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    39. Re:Destruction of evidence by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, both Japanese and Germans were interned during WWII. They were kept separate largely because most of the Japanese-Americans who were interned there considered the German's to be untrustworthy. Accordingly, their keeps feared problems. In some camps they were allowed to mix but it almost never happened. Each collective kept to themselves.

      IIRC, the last of the Japanese were released from the camps almost two years after the end of WWII. The interned Germans were much more lucky.

    40. Re:Destruction of evidence by msauve · · Score: 1

      Only if it actually is evidence related to that investigation. If the investigation is about X, but they're destroying evidence of Y, of which the investigators know nothing (i.e. isn't relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding). So, maybe they're destroying evidence of a Ponzi scheme, because they don't want an investigation of insider trading to turn up that, too.

      IANAL, but I play one on /.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    41. Re:Destruction of evidence by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. Don't you think you're missing the big picture a bit perhaps? They have an informant willing to wear a wire. How much do you want to bet this informant is willing to testify as to the other illegal things that were going on (the alleged insider trading)? How many hours of tape do you think they have? How many documents did this informant pass to them?

      If this small snippet was all they have, I might be inclined to agree that it stinks, but by itself isn't enough to convict. But that's why this isn't all they have. Given what's in this article, I presume the feds have more evidence than just the snippet in the summary. They have a lot of allegations of specific wrongdoing. The article doesn't disclose what evidence the feds say they have, but you can't put things in an indictment without at least SOME evidence to back it up.

    42. Re:Destruction of evidence by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      That's why I immediately destroy anything that might be incriminating. :)

      Here's you legal thought experiment for the day: if it's SOP to regularly destroy anything that might be incriminating along with other confidential, secret, or private information, then is it destruction of evidence?

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    43. Re:Destruction of evidence by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.

      No, if you're under investigation and start shredding everything in sight, you probably did something bad.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    44. Re:Destruction of evidence by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.
      Obviously I disagree.

      Actually, it's more of the old "destroying evidence of a crime" scenario. And, since this involves insider trading, it should be covered under Sarbaes Oxley, which basically makes it a crime to delete evidence once you're engaged in legal proceedings.

      When you're being investigated for fraud destroying the evidence isn't a matter of protecting your privacy. It's a matter of evading the law. Completely different things.

      This guy could find himself in some pretty serious hot water.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    45. Re:Destruction of evidence by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "If they can reasonably believe that an investigation is coming, it is still considered destruction of evidence."

      Just curious..does the govt. not have to prove that it was evidence that was destroyed..and not just security mindedness on the part of the company?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    46. Re:Destruction of evidence by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Awww... you're supposed to claim it's a six syllable word, and then sit back and watch 'em try to find the missing syllable. :-)

    47. Re:Destruction of evidence by dmacleod808 · · Score: 1

      6 Million JEWS.... That doesnt count the Catholics, People of African descent, gypsies, etc... I think the number is closer to 10 million

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    48. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destroying evidence can lead to worse. The judge can instruct the jury that the evidence you destroyed existed and that what was on the evidence was harmful to your defense. It can basically ruin your case. Arista v. Usenet.com. The case will give you a better idea but basically once you have notice, actual or constructive, you have an obligation to preserve the evidence. If you destroy it the court has the power to sanction the offending party by instructing the jury to consider the evidence real and damaging.

    49. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seemed to work for Ollie North.

    50. Re:Destruction of evidence by hardburn · · Score: 1

      I believe there is something to that effect. Companies will routinely bring a shredder around and throw in anything they can find, including mundane post-it notes, so they can't be accused of destroying something specific.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    51. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing that destruction of evidence charges are less than the insider trading charges.

    52. Re:Destruction of evidence by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's a legitimate argument to make. People are breaking the law by destroying evidence. People who aren't doing anything wrong are usually more concerned with getting busted for obstruction of justice than for what they've been charged with. It was extremely tenuous when the RIAA attorneys accused Jammie Thomas-Rasset of destroying the disk in response to a suit that she hadn't been served with yet. But in this case I'm pretty sure that they knew they were going to be served.

      The difference being that in the Thomas-Rasset case there was no basis for assuming that she'd be served with a search warrant at the time the disk died whereas in the case of the current article it was a direct response to a probe that the individual had a reasonable expectation of being served with a search warrant.

    53. Re:Destruction of evidence by Danse · · Score: 1

      Only if it actually is evidence related to that investigation. If the investigation is about X, but they're destroying evidence of Y, of which the investigators know nothing (i.e. isn't relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding). So, maybe they're destroying evidence of a Ponzi scheme, because they don't want an investigation of insider trading to turn up that, too. IANAL, but I play one on /.

      From what I've read of corporate security policies and training, destroying anything that they want to subpoena would be considered destruction of evidence. If they subpoena your hard drives or entire computer systems, or flash drives, or whatever, and you've destroyed them after knowing that there's an investigation, that's still destruction of evidence.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    54. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to go back so far. There were all those missing White House emails from a few years back. Or, more along the lines of getting a radio show, there is the famous 18.5 minutes of blank tape (if you don't know what I'm talking about, then get the hell off my lawn).

    55. Re:Destruction of evidence by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If it's your private HDD you're likely fine, unless you've been served. But in cases like this I'm pretty sure that there are retention requirements for the information, and destroying that information prior to that designated time period likely would play a factor in it. Especially if you're doing it yourself outside of standard procedures. In business that would usually involve IT personnel taking and wiping it rather than you doing it yourself.

      If the allegations as to how the drives were destroyed is backed with evidence you can be pretty sure that it was his intention to destroy evidence. Whereas had he followed standard procedures it would likely be difficult to prove.

    56. Re:Destruction of evidence by Ra+Zen · · Score: 1

      Certainly. I was only making the point the American camps were nothing at all like the Nazi camps where people definitely were exterminated.

    57. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently disposed of a collection of old disks. As you say, the glass platters will not survive a solid whack with a hammer; the platters shatter into a thousand bits and the drive sounds like a rattle when shaken.

      Some disks have aluminum platters that will not shatter. Can't say if ceramic platters will or not. If in doubt just shake the drive; if you can hear the tiny fragments tumbling around then it has shattered. If not then open the drive, remove the platters and mangle them. Fire works.

    58. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously this guy isn't very bright. If you commit a crime to cover up a crime, you're a dumbass and apparently you lose your ability form a complete sentence that makes sense.

    59. Re:Destruction of evidence by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      Evidence is anything that can be used to demonstrate the innocence or guilt of a person in relation to a crime. It isn't evidence when the police find it, it's evidence the moment it can be used in connection to a crime in any way. You assume that something needs to be documented and logged to be evidence, which is not true.

    60. Re:Destruction of evidence by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      And people modded me down when I take the guy to task for mindless ramblings. I don't know if it's a godwin that this dude is looking for, or whether his tinfoil hat needs an anodizing of titanium, but the wild hair I've-got-info-you-don't-got BS just gets old.

      Your point is right. We didn't exterminate people in WW2. Others did. We had a lot of fuckups in WW2, but none of them involved lining people up and machine gunning them, putting them into gas chambers and ovens, and so on. This is just one of his BS citations. Don't feel bad.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    61. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not so fast there, Hopalong! Evidence of destruction of evidence is admissible to prove that the evidence, if present, would have been incriminating, and the jury will be told that.

    62. Re:Destruction of evidence by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      You can be held accountable for destruction of evidence if the courts have a reasonable belief that you destroyed the evidence to cover up a crime, or to interfere with an investigation. If you were aware that an investigation was going on, and your hard drive failed, it would still be evidence, and would be legally advisable to hold on to it for awhile instead of destroying it.

      If you don't know that you're under investigation, of course, it would be up to the prosecution to prove that you destroyed the hard drive to destroy evidence, and not because of a hard drive failure. Unfortunately, physically destroying a destroyed hard drive does carry a bit of suspicion to it, because most people don't do it, even though is makes perfect sense to do so.

    63. Re:Destruction of evidence by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Lots of jurisdictions when evidence has been willfully destroyed interpret the remaining evidence as being against the side that did the destroying. So if a piece of evidence could imply X or Y, and the missing evidence likely would have clarrified which then the one least favourable for the destroyer is going to get used.

      And you'll go to jail if they can prove you destroyed your hard drive in a situation like that. See the idiot who "hacked" Palin's email for a recent example - the "hacking" conviction was a misdemeanor, the obstruction of justice by destroying evidence conviction was the felony.

    64. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just ask Scooter Libby. He didn't actually do anything, but protecting some Dick.

    65. Re:Destruction of evidence by mlts · · Score: 1

      The parent post states it excellently. I should add that people have to remember that even though past mis-deeds were in the past and as of now can't be arrested/sued on, it isn't hard for statute of limitations on various things to get revoked. A treaty can be signed that makes things that happened in the past prime target for cold case prosecutors.

      It might be that the next WIPO/ACTA treaty makes the statute of limitations on any IP infringement unlimited, so people could be sued/arrested for pirating Duke Nukem 3D in the 1990s.

      Of course, it makes sense to swap out the hard disk for another. People will go "buh?" if there is a hard disk in a machine, but blank. If a HDD is missing, they will be not yapping about stuff at the office cooler; they will be calling security, and people will be trying to remember any details they have noticed that were any way out of place.

    66. Re:Destruction of evidence by mooingyak · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are a number of things that have happened during my lifetime, which I've not told ANYONE.

      Could you provide examples?

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    67. Re:Destruction of evidence by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      The latter is a lot harder to prove, especially if the defendant is being investigated for a different crime. These investment bankers probably have evidence for crimes far worse than mere insider trading.

    68. Re:Destruction of evidence by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      "I have no recollection of those events your honor."

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    69. Re:Destruction of evidence by cez · · Score: 1
      *shudders*

      My ex used to work at an assisted living community and had to deal with a real "window licker" who would pleasure himself loudly as he licked said cold window at night waking up others... I met him once on a field trip when I went to help out... although he sure likes his windows, even he wouldn't be silly enough to mistake the two such as the GP. Please, think of the window lickers before making such comparisons.

      --
      Walk with Music;
    70. Re:Destruction of evidence by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      The difference is, you have been doing it that way for a long time... it wasn't a sudden departure from procedure -you were following your existing (written or not) procedure for destroying old drives. That is why companies maintain data retention policies, and media destruction policies -you can't be charged with destruction or withholding of evidence if you simply followed procedure and destroyed it (assuming of course you did not know that there was an investigation requiring you to keep it.)

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    71. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to popular belief, federal prisons are safer for the inmates than state prisons.

    72. Re:Destruction of evidence by dietdew7 · · Score: 1

      It's only four the way I pronounce it.

    73. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly hope securely erasing a hard drive wouldn't be grounds for obstruction. So, what now? If I get investigated shortly after I dispose of a computer (which involves a secure hard drive delete), I can go to jail?

    74. Re:Destruction of evidence by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that it's suspicious, but where's the evidence that it was actually any evidence of any wrongdoing?

    75. Re:Destruction of evidence by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Of course I can. Just let me take another sip of my anti-amnesia medicine, and I'll make up some cool-sounding shit to baffle you. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    76. Re:Destruction of evidence by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.

      The problem of course, it's that's a strawman of your own creation. Nobody claims that but you.
       
      The claim is "if they're innocent, why are they going to such extremes to destroy the evidence that would prove them innocent?". The reasonable answer of course is that nobody innocent has any reason to destroy the evidence that proves them innocent. Innocent people normally want to go out of their way to introduce the evidence that proves them so and to prevent the prosecution from hiding it or blocking it's usage in court.

    77. Re:Destruction of evidence by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's more of the old "destroying evidence of a crime" scenario. And, since this involves insider trading, it should be covered under Sarbaes Oxley, which basically makes it a crime to delete evidence once you're engaged in legal proceedings.

      When you're being investigated for fraud destroying the evidence isn't a matter of protecting your privacy. It's a matter of evading the law. Completely different things.

      This guy could find himself in some pretty serious hot water.

      While it's not relevant in this case since the investigation was public knowledge (via the WSJ article), if you destroy "evidence" without knowledge of any investigation, it's not evading the law, it's disposing of your property as you see fit.

      That said, it seems to me that destruction of financial records should be regulated so that any destruction is logged with sufficient detail that any inappropriate destruction can be tracked.

      n.b. IANAL

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    78. Re:Destruction of evidence by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Your point is right. We didn't exterminate people in WW2. Others did.

      I'm sure the tens of thousands of civilian casualties of the Dresden and Hamburg firestorms and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would disagree if they hadn't been exterminated en masse.

    79. Re:Destruction of evidence by Patoski · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, but, were I in their shoes, I'd have to ask myself:

      1. Does acting strangely (i.e., throwing my hard drives in random garbage trucks) prove my guilt in the case?

      I worked in electronic discovery for a time which deals with ferreting out electronic information during trials. Doing something in the manner you're pondering would likely get you into a lot more trouble than you're counting on.

      During your trial the judge the judge would likely find efforts to destroy to be in bad faith and give the jury an instruction to make an adverse inference about the evidence you destroyed. Basically this means that whatever bad facts the prosecutor claims were on the hard drive (with a modicum of fact and or educated guessing backing it up), the jury would assume those bad things were found to be true during trial. there is a small chance that the judge might invoke a default ruling (i.e. you're guilty).

      2. If there is evidence on those hard drives that probably would prove my guilt, which is the lesser sentence: obstruction or whatever I'll get charged with if they find smokinggun.jpg on those drives?

      You would likely be found guilty of both the original charges (whatever they were) and destruction of evidence and whatever else the prosecutor can come up with (which is likely to be lengthy). In general it is a bad idea to try to outsmart the court or play fast and loose with evidence. Very few things will tick off a judge faster or more violently than the destruction of evidence in bad faith (i.e. you meant to destroy or hide evidence to avoid getting caught).

      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    80. Re:Destruction of evidence by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Mea culpa. You're right.

      War sucks.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    81. Re:Destruction of evidence by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He does drive a Honda and hate trains, though, so he's got that going for him.

    82. Re:Destruction of evidence by MikePlacid · · Score: 1

      >I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming.
      Are you saying you have any drives that are not full-disk encrypted yet? Amazing. Seriously, just amazing.

    83. Re:Destruction of evidence by HiThere · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Having spoken to some survivors of those camps, I think you paint an overly civilized picture of them.

      The children were sent to what could properly be called "retraining schools" to encourage them into politically correct beliefs. Their property was stolen, and never repaid. Etc.

      OTOH, you are correct. They were "internment camps", and most people survived them. They might have become impoverished and be forced to work as farm laborers, but they did live through the experience. Most of them.

      Saying they were given homes is painting a very pretty picture on the actuality, but it's not totally false. Quite. Similarly for the rest of your statements.

      But you are right, they weren't extermination camps. They were essentially POW camps for citizens of the US. And as far as I have been able to figure out the entire purpose of them was to allow the wealth of those so interred to be confiscated by others with powerful political connections. (You might notice that Hawaii, which had a larger proportion of Japanese citizens than did California didn't need or use any such camps. Nor were the German citizens on the east cost treated so. It appears to have been legalized racial discrimination for the purpose of confiscating wealth.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    84. Re:Destruction of evidence by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, very few citizens of German extraction were held in internment camps during WWII. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it was a comparatively rare event. The Japanese were rounded-up whole-sale in certain states, and left alone in other states. One of the states where they were left alone was Hawaii. (Well, it wasn't a state at the time.) If it were done as a matter of security, then Hawaii would have been one of the places where it most needed to be done. So clearly the reason was something else.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    85. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can reasonably believe that an investigation is coming, it is still considered destruction of evidence.

      Which is why you should have a pre-established routine for destroying data. It's called "plausible deniability". You didn't destroy *evidence*, you were just doing your routine common-sense house-keeping destruction of data.

      Most companies do this for exactly this reason. Eg. old e-mail gets deleted, because after a certain amount of time, it loses useful value but can still be a risk for damage against the company.

      I have a streamlined data destruction routine, which I consider just as important as my data backup routine. In fact, I incorporate the two. As soon as I've done a nightly tape backup, I put the tape inside my black North Face jacket, and leave the apartment and I go on like a twenty block walk around the city and try to find a, a garbage truck and throw the shit in the back of like random garbage trucks.

      The less time that that data sits around, the safer I am.

    86. Re:Destruction of evidence by Confusador · · Score: 1

      3: Is there any other evidence in existence that I do not have control over, which could lead to my being convicted of both the original crime AND obstruction.

    87. Re:Destruction of evidence by lennier · · Score: 1

      your desire to use your kitteh to login to your computer.

      Shoot, the FBI is knocking on my door. Welp, time to napalm the security authentication token... uh oh...

      I CAN NOT HAZ DESTRUCTABLE!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    88. Re:Destruction of evidence by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      There's a statute of limitations on most white collar crimes, and also on destroying evidence. Once 15 years or so (depends the crime, I think?) has passed, you're good to go.

      Probably wouldn't seem very important by then, though.

    89. Re:Destruction of evidence by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Yep. To quote the article: "When people frantically begin shredding sensitive documents and deleting computer files and smashing flash drives and chasing garbage trucks at 2 a.m. ... it is not because they have been operating legitimately," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.
      Obviously I disagree.
      I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming. They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      The difference here is that people engaged in finance --because they are dealing with other peoples' money-- are held to a different set of rules. One of those rules --and it's a big and very well-known one in finance-- is that if you can reasonably anticipate litigation, you are under a legal obligation to preserve any documents or data that might be relevant to that litigation.

      If you do destroy relevant data, depending on whether your actions ranged from accidentally going along with normal office policy to ridiculously obviously willful destruction of evidence, the penalties can range from an optional slap on the wrist to an assumption that whatever you destroyed was incriminating.

    90. Re:Destruction of evidence by ooshna · · Score: 1

      They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      They already do...

    91. Re:Destruction of evidence by sjwt · · Score: 1

      Thats 20um, not mil. 20mil is about 4/5ths of an inch.

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    92. Re:Destruction of evidence by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Thats 20um, not mil. 20mil is about 4/5ths of an inch.

      Obviously you're not an engineer and failed math. 1 mil = 0.001" so 20 mil = 0.02"
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=UVS&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:mil+thickness&sa=X&ei=4dRUTfyXFoH78Aa01IXPBw&ved=0CBMQkAE

    93. Re:Destruction of evidence by popoutman · · Score: 1

      And we wonder why Nasa planted a Mars probe in the wrong place. To an engineer trained under the Metric system, the phrase 20mil is ambiguous, and the best fit for an answer is 20 mil*limetres*. To an engineer under the Imperial system (why Lord, why) 20 mil could be 20 millionths of an inch, i.e. 2x10^-5 inches (or 508 Angstrom) It may be an engineering convention to combin imperial measurement with metric scaling, but that just causes confusion.

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    94. Re:Destruction of evidence by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Ahhh the old "if you are innocent, then you shouldn't have a right to privacy" argument.

      Obviously I disagree.

      I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming. They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      Destroying evidence of a crime is a crime, it has nothing to do with privacy.

      If donating to wikileaks is illegal where you live, then you are destroying evidence of that as well as destroying evidence of your computer/financial crimes. If it is not, why would the police care?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    95. Re:Destruction of evidence by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There are a number of things that have happened during my lifetime, which I've not told ANYONE

      Finally, the truth about JFK's assassination...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    96. Re:Destruction of evidence by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "I have no recollection of those events your honor."

      Says the guilty criminal.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    97. Re:Destruction of evidence by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Destroying evidence is very rarely a good move.

      unless the evidence would be used to convict you of a far greater crime, in which case destroying evidence seems like a rather great idea.

      Yes, if you are a fucking criminal. What's the matter with people here? Is there really no such thing as morality any more? Only how clever at getting away with crime you are?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    98. Re:Destruction of evidence by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If you've got evidence that you've committed murder on a drive, and you destroy the drive, the penalty for obstruction is orders of magnitude less than the penalty for a successful murder conviction.

      All this would be relevant if there were absolutely no other evidence available to prosecutors other than what is on the drive. That is not at all likely, as you don't prosecute for murder with only one piece of evidence.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    99. Re:Destruction of evidence by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      Seems as if they don't need to worry about getting that info, any more.

    100. Re:Destruction of evidence by g253 · · Score: 1

      You may have a right to destroy your own data, but I don't believe a corporation should have that right. Destroying corporate data is not the same as personal data, in my opinion.

    101. Re:Destruction of evidence by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What is the legal status of the investigation? In the UK that sort of thing is handled by the Financial Services Authority and as such is a civil matter. Destroying evidence in such a case is not in itself punishable. A couple of years back some senior guy at a bank used Evidence Eliminator to wipe his drive to avoid the FSA and there was nothing they could do about it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    102. Re:Destruction of evidence by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinking you were going to say "Scooter Libby". Picking a fall guy to obstruct justice is a long and time-honored tradition among crooks.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    103. Re:Destruction of evidence by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yea, but you're paranoid and don't really count.

      The government doesn't need to know, but its not really going to hurt you if they do see your data ... unless you ARE a criminal.

      You certainly do have your own right to privacy, and the government in general has no right to it. However, as a civilized society, most of us recognize that the only reason you would go about destroying your data is if you were trying to hide something illegal ... because most of us don't live in an Orwellian dystopian fantasy where you think the government is going to secretly torture you because you donated to wikileaks ... which is ironic considering you're happy to blab about it on slashdot so everyone knows anyway.

      When our civil rights DO actually start getting violated regularly I might change my opinion. Until then I'll have to stick with my original assessment that the only reason you would destroy your data is because you are doing something illegal. Even if you had some super secret awesome technology that was worth a whole lot of money, the government finding it isn't going to make your tech worthless, it'll still be worth SOMETHING, so destroying it isn't a business decision.

      This wasn't you destroying the data because you're afraid of some personal secret getting out and making your life difficult.

      This was some guys destroying records, some of which are required by law, intentionally because they knew they were about to be inspected. I don't need a trial, there is enough evidence in their behavior leading up to it to know they are guilty, its only a matter of determining the number of crimes they are guilty off. Your behavior is an indication of your guilt or innocence no matter how much you think it isn't. It can be misinterpreted of course, but this is one of those times when they only way you can say 'maybe they weren't guilty and weren't just trying to destroy evidence of their guilt' is if you're completely unaware of pretty much every detail involving the case. Even the guys living under a rock know better.

      Taking a 20 block walk at 2am scattering drives between dump trucks that contain documents (some of which are legally required for their operation) is an admission of guilt in and of itself. You can try to paint it as a privacy/rights issue, but please don't, all you're doing is taking away from the real times when these issues matter. Use some damn common sense.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    104. Re:Destruction of evidence by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Nope, not much more than normal ... because you do that all the time, its not an abnormal behavior pattern for you.

      However, walking a 20 block route around the city at 2am throwing company harddrives with company documents on them into multiple dump trucks to ensure the drives are sufficiently difficult for anyone to find and recover ... which you don't ever do ... will probably raise some questions.

      Investigators don't care about normal behavior patterns, its the ones that stick out like a sore thumb that they tend to focus on, with good reason, thats usually how they find criminals.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    105. Re:Destruction of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to know that I donated to wikileaks and other projects.

      Too late - now they know.

    106. Re:Destruction of evidence by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Well - had I been involved in that mess, it would have been my parent's responsibility. John Junior was a year older than me. Not responsible for my actions, I say!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    107. Re:Destruction of evidence by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Cyder - whoa, buddy. Ever heard, "We're from the government, and we're here to help you!" ??? Realize, that the justice system and "Justice" are only barely related. I mean, they both start with "J", and they sort of share some synonyms between them - like "right" and "wrong". But, the justice system is easily corrupted, and turned into a tool, if you have money, power, influence, powerful friends and relatives, etc. Look at all the skanky whores in Hollywood who are in trouble with the law. See just how much leniency is shown them. See just how many times their fingers are laughingly slapped, before some judge finally gets serious with them. Now, head on over to East L.A. where the poor people live. Same skanky whores committing the same stupid crimes - but they don't get the lenience that the broads over in Hollywood get. Nope - no money, no fanclub, no rich boyfriends, no memorabilia - nothing. Justice. Worse than merely justice, you bring in morality. Man - that's like metaphysics compared to justice. Morally speaking, I'm not obligated to assist the government in preparing the guillotine to chop off my own frigging head. Let them do the work themselves!! Hell yes, I'm going to destroy anything that I think they might want to use as evidence!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    108. Re:Destruction of evidence by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Your personal information is not the same as a business working with investment vehicles using other peoples money. There's little "right to privacy" here.

      These people weren't worried about being waterboarded by a nefarious shadow government for making a $5 wikileaks contribution.

      When they start destroying all records of communication surrounding what they did, it was criminal destruction of evidence.

  3. Encryption by heypete · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Encryption seems a bit more foolproof. It's also a bit more believable that one might "forget" a lengthy passphrase, while physical destruction looks a bit suspicious.

    That said, encryption and physical destruction is also useful, as it means that even if someone gets some of the physical components of the disk, it will be even more difficult to get any data off of them.

    1. Re:Encryption by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that in some places, using encryption to hide evidence of a crime is itself a crime:

      http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-152.15

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Encryption by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So? I'd gladly take a misdemeanor if it meant they had no evidence that a crime was committed.

      Another poorly thought-out law written by stupid assholes that don't understand the first fucking thing about computers.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:Encryption by zero0ne · · Score: 2

      But how does one go about and PROVE that the encryption was used to willfully hide evidence? If they can't see the data, how do they know it is evidence of a crime?

      Also, what kind of moron would go around talking about how he destroyed evidence to ANYONE? Considering the only way they could secure a good case against you is either video of you destroying the evidence or audio of you talking about it, you shouldn't be talking openly about it.

      "Loose lips sink ships"

    4. Re:Encryption by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Take a look at the police training manual, "Catch him with his encryption down," which is posted somewhere on cryptome. The police have methods of extracting passphrases or tricking people into leaving an encrypted partition mounted; they can then collect the evidence, and charge you with the crime of encrypting it. Actually defending yourself against the police, even if you use encryption, is a substantially difficult thing to do.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Encryption by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I imagine that it would be a very strange scenario if you were convicted of that misdemeanor without being convicted of another crime as well. After all, they need to have the evidence in order to show that you encrypted the evidence. It is really just another law that underhandedly increases criminal sentences and adds to the number of charges that accused criminals have to argue against.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Encryption by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      This is very much what I want to know. Destroy your drives, shred your papers, I'm with you this far-- but then ADMITTING to having done it? This isn't like the situation of a thug bragging about a store he robbed for ego points; nobody's going to praise you for operating a shredder, so where's the value in yammering about it?

    7. Re:Encryption by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Oh, well, in that case, I'm sure the criminals will just forgo using encryption. After all, you know how much they respect the law.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:Encryption by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      5th Amendment.

      You don't need to "forget" the password. You just refuse to give it over.

    9. Re:Encryption by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      How about an encrypted RAID array? Remove the critical number of drives from your array, replace them with blank drives, then give the encryption key when asked? They fire that bad boy up, the RAID attempts to rebuild itself, but fails, they look harshly at you, but you can say convincingly, "Hey, I'm cooperating here, what do you WANT from me?"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This won't work in the UK, and maybe other countries. Their criminal just bill states doing this will be treated as guilty.

    11. Re:Encryption by tobiah · · Score: 1

      18.2-152.15. Encryption used in criminal activity.

      Any person who willfully uses encryption to further any criminal activity shall be guilty of an offense which is separate and distinct from the predicate criminal activity and punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

      "Encryption" means the enciphering of intelligible data into unintelligible form or the deciphering of unintelligible data into intelligible form.

      (1999, c. 455.)

      Sounds broad enough that using slang would count as encryption.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    12. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have been making hard disk platters out of aluminum for quite a while now (plastered in that lousy pixie dust, trying to get past that lousy superparamagnetic effect) see here). If you could dip the entire drive into an acid (sulferic acid is good, it readily etches aluminum, and is found in any car battery), that would render in one quick dip all of the data unreadable. Its a bit hazardous, but it is effective. Put the drives in a container that isn't affected by sulferic acid, use a drill to put a hole in the top of a relatively new, charged up car battery, then pour the acid onto the drives. Make sure you have safety glasses and gloves on, make sure you are away from any splashes, make sure that you are doing this in a well ventilated place, make sure the acid covers the drives completely. Use two batteries if you don't have enough. The sulphur will first corrode the rubber gasket between the top plate and the rest of the drive. It will then leak into the platters, corroding all the data. Of course, if you wanted something a bit faster, shoot a hole (gun, pick, etc) into the drive, and fill it with acid. Faster, more acid within the drive, more corrosion inside (you don't care about corroding the outside of the drive). On the other hand, you could just pull out the platters, and dip them in acid. A few hours should have all your data well beyond unreadable. Of course, you could also encrypt all the data first, wipe the drives, then pull them out, dip them in acid, then toss them into a garbage truck. That would make recovery a bit more difficult.

    13. Re:Encryption by axehind · · Score: 1

      I would still be afraid they would crack it eventually.

    14. Re:Encryption by arisvega · · Score: 1

      Best way to hack a server:

      Use an axe, at the point of origin.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    15. Re:Encryption by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's circular though. First they have to show that there was a crime and that evidence of it was encrypted, but they can't read the encrypted volume to find the evidence to prove you committed any crime...

    16. Re:Encryption by debrain · · Score: 1

      Sir –

      So? I'd gladly take a misdemeanor if it meant they had no evidence that a crime was committed.

      First, if there was no evidence a crime was committed, the court couldn't convict you of using encryption to conceal evidence about a crime. It's a prerequisite that the primary crime that has had evidence encrypted be proven before encrypting the evidence can become a crime itself. If there is a reasonable doubt about the primary crime, there's reasonable doubt about the crime of encrypting.

      Further, refusing to provide the information necessary to decrypt a device as required by a valid warrant or Court order is a separate offence, and not a misdemeanor. It's contempt of court, and often can carry a penalty greater than the charge.

      While encrypting information related to a crime may be a misdemeanor, it likely only comes into play in sentencing for the primary crime for which the evidence was encrypted.

      I hope that's helpful food for thought.

    17. Re:Encryption by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's much worse. You don't need to know the first thing about computers (even what one looks like) to appreciate the brokenness of the logic.

    18. Re:Encryption by sortadan · · Score: 1

      That is hit and miss, the 5th amendment is not respected for this by some people in the judicial branch (as has been noted on /. several times before)... first google result for 5th amendment password

    19. Re:Encryption by morcego · · Score: 1

      If hackers can do it, I see no reason law enforcement can't either. Social engineering is a beautiful thing.

      --
      morcego
    20. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it is best to (carefully) wipe your disk clean and start with fresh install if you detected a virus on it.

    21. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Encrypt it
      2) Erase with at least 3 passes of random 1s and 0s
      3) Take it apart and smash the actual storage media
      4) Burn the resulting debris, (preferably with thermite, but a good hot gasoline fire should do)
      5) Collect any solid looking burnt bits, toss off Brooklyn Bridge into the East River on an outgoing tide

      You could probably just skip to step 4 or step 5 and be pretty well assured that nothing would be salvaged from the device.

    22. Re:Encryption by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Encryption seems a bit more foolproof. It's also a bit more believable that one might "forget" a lengthy passphrase, while physical destruction looks a bit suspicious.

      It's more believable in the sense that believing in pink elephants is more believable than believing in polka-dotted ones.
       
      I.E. it's not at all believable that company who routinely encrypts their data (and thus must routinely decrypt it to compile statements, etc...) conveniently 'forgets' how to decrypt it when the cops show up.

    23. Re:Encryption by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      But if the evidence is encrypted, how to they know it is evidence of a crime?

    24. Re:Encryption by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Of course, you could also encrypt all the data first, wipe the drives, then pull them out, dip them in acid, then toss them into a garbage truck. That would make recovery a bit more difficult.

      For added security, pull a Shawshank. Unscrew and extract all the bits of the drive, and toss each small piece in a different garbage truck over several weeks.

    25. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, make the key a confession to a crime, and use 5th amendment to not have to reveal the key.

    26. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea of putting the encryption key on something like a CD, then making sure the CD goes on the front door in such a way that it gets destroyed if they break in the door. "I always know where and how to get into my encrypted files and would readily give it to you, but you just broke it :("

    27. Re:Encryption by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So? I'd gladly take a misdemeanor if it meant they had no evidence that a crime was committed.

      Another poorly thought-out law written by stupid assholes that don't understand the first fucking thing about computers.

      In the UK we have upped the stakes by making refusal to reveal an encryption key a crime with a potential jail sentence of five years. Whether you agree with the principle or not, this makes a lot more logical sense than it being merely a minor misdemeanor.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. White collar criminals ARE smarter by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So they should continue to receive the lighter sentences. Right? It shouldn't matter that the impact of their crime was the ruination of thousands of lives. Putting these guys in with common thugs is just cruel.

    1. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      Don't hate the player, hate the game.

    2. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      So it's not the rapist's fault, it's... Mother Nature's? God's?

    3. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why ration hatred? It isn't exactly a terribly limited resource. Seems entirely reasonable to hate the game and(since joining the game is voluntary) all the players.

    4. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      at the risk of suffering 5000 degree flamewar posts...

      There *IS* some (small) evidence that being a rapist is at least partially genetically based. (rather, a predisposition to being a rapist that is.)

      In such cases, I would say the impulse is mother nature's fault. The decision to act, is the purpetrator's.

      (Much like mother nature is at fault for our desire to eat sweet things, but our reaching into the cookie jar when we know better is OUR fault.)

      Now, that aside-- White collar criminals who destroy thousands of people's lives so they can live in obscene luxury deserve not only to be devested of said luxuries, but to be treated like the criminals they are. That does not mean I advocate prison rape or the like-- even serial killers shouldnt be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments or conditions in the penal system-- it just means that they should be put away and prevented from doing any further harm.

    5. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The distinction (problem) isn't street thug vs. white collar. It's with the victims. With a street thug, there's one victim, one person bearing all of the injury. It's really easy to look at that one person, feel the emotional weight of the injury, and decide the perpetrator needs to be punished.. With white collar crime, the injury is distributed over dozens, hundreds, sometimes millions of victims. So even though the sum total of the injury may be much greater than the sum total of the injury caused by the street thug, there is little to no emotional impact. People still see it as "well, that spam only cost me 5 seconds of my life, so no big deal." So the punishments tend to be much less severe.

      Guess what? 5 seconds per spam * 10 spams which get past the filters * 100 million recipients works out to 158 man-years of time lost. The sum total of the injury caused by this spammer is actually greater than killing a person. It's just that the injury is distributed instead of concentrated on one place. The average lost productivity to society is the same.

    6. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Fraud is a two way street. Physical assault is not.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, the players are also the game masters.

    8. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      When I think white collar crimes, I think of those which deprive you of savings, home, identity, etc., ultimately damaging your and your family's health, safety and prospects. The emotional impact is obvious and visible.

      But the amount of money white collar criminals have to put a positive PR spin on what they do exceeds that available to rapists. If a few powerful people decided to take up public serial rape, I'm sure ten years of media tweaking would get a chunk of the unwashed mass to start supporting the sport of casual rape. Then some crude intellectual would paint a philosophy which justified rape and students, always yearning for an ideal to excuse their behaviour, would gather on-side: grass roots rape!

      It worked for Catholics, Marxists and Objectivists. Surprisology, anyone?

    9. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Please add more detail to that remark (so I can point out your mistake).

    10. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Your newsletter, cut of your jib, and so forth.

    11. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See also "Roman Polanski" for your "hypothetical" example...

    12. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Starteck81 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had some mod points for you. That is an extremely insightful point you made.

      Dan Airely's books about irrationality talk a lot about these types of responses to devastating events. Specifically that they get little action because they do not trigger our emotions to help even though they rationally should.

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    13. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Fraud requires the consent of both parties. Informed or not, it's still consent. Assault(rape) is unilateral, possibly life threatening force.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    14. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same evidence that one can be genetically predisposed to being a rapist can be used to say that one can be genetically predisposed to commit white-collar crime.

    15. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Henry Rollins do a stand-up routine about this?

    16. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      You go to a restaurant. You've had a nice meal. I take away your credit card. I swipe it, then record its details to clone it. I return the original to you. I make a clone and withdraw the cash advance limit from a cash point. Where is the consent? Sure, you consented for me to take the card to settle the bill, and you were foolish to let the card out of your sight, but that doesn't mean you consented to everything else.

      Your argument is the white collar equivalent of, "They were fondling each other and 10 minutes later she was passed-out drunk so the following sexual intercourse was consenting." In some way she consented to some interaction, and she was foolish to drink so much, but she absolutely never said OK to sex. Perhaps this is "better" than rape at gunpoint, but it's still rape.

    17. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your system of valuation has no basis in any kind of objective reality. The moments lost from spam were not all moments that were potentially capable of being monetized.

    18. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ALWAYS hate the idiot that says "don't hate the player..."

    19. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Jackazz · · Score: 1

      What about the man whose erection returns from buying the spammed product? Whether from placebo effect or actual drug, if he is able to conceive a child then aren't man-years regained for society? Just a few cases of this makes the spam man-hour positive!!!

    20. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good point, but I'm pretty sure offing a guy has a significant multiplier effect over and above the simple loss of his future man-hours. Think of the lost productivity in his family and friends; the fear that would be instilled in his community; the loss of property value nearby. I'm sure you can think of more. Spam just doesn't have that kind of impact.

    21. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "5 seconds per spam * 10 spams which get past the filters * 100 million recipients works out to 158 man-years of time lost."

      And who said that the time lost to spam was to be definitely productively spent in any meaning full way otherwise?
      If you factor in the time lost to nose picking by the average desk jockey per day X the number of desk jockeys in the world....well, we could have cured cancer by now if it wasn't for them. Let's declare it a crime and engage in active punishment of offenders.

      See, everything has that irritating component called context that we forget all too easily.

    22. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, are you comparing loss of productivity with loss of human lifes? Are you so morally wrong? Are you human?

    23. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Funny, I see it the exact opposite. These guys made a massive impact on far more people than some guy shooting some 5 year olds mom and dad.

      When the crime is SO large that I can't even emotionally connect to it ... I REALLY can't see how you could justify being lighter on them rather than harder.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    24. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Polanski wasn't "rape-rape," just "rape."

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    25. Re:White collar criminals ARE smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet no one died.

      Getting hit in the face 10000 times with cotton balls still doesn't mean you were punched. The sum total of the force would probably break your neck or take your head clean off. It doesn't mean you were decapitated. It doesn't mean you were put in any real danger or died.

      Street crime is real. There is a threat of death. And you're equating that to spam? Are you fucking serious? White collar crime IS a lesser crime, because it IS spread out. That's the god damn point (in perpetrating as well as punishing it).

  5. How I roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd have made a clean system image via clonezilla when I first got issued my machine, then just swap the incriminating HDD for a clean imaged one.

    1. Re:How I roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, because the feds will believe any story you give them about the X month gap between being issued the machine and the dates on recently created file.

    2. Re:How I roll by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      "Bob, I'm glad SCC investigators didn't find anything nasty or incriminating on your computer. However, it turns out you haven't even turned the damn thing on for two years, so it looks like you've been jacking off in your office for quite some time, so we're letting you go."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:How I roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have made a clean system image via clonezilla when I first got issued my machine, then just swap the incriminating HDD for a clean imaged one.

      So not only destruction of evidence, but falsification as well.

      Be sure to use that decoy disk every now and then. It may be a bit conspicuous that you didn't use your computer since right after it was issued up until just recently.

    4. Re:How I roll by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Don't talk to the feds or police, ever. It can only hurt you. Let them think what they want.

    5. Re:How I roll by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      I'll take "getting fired" versus "going to jail" any day of the week.

      Unfortunately, it's never quite that simple...

    6. Re:How I roll by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      My workstation at work allows USB bootable media.

      A knoppix installation on a USB flash disk would allow clandestine activity at work, without leaving any traces. As long as the use was intermittent, then my workstation would appear to have both been used in that time, AND be clean.

      the flash drive is also much easier to destroy secretly, even though it would not have any evidence on it either. (knoppix is read only by default.)

    7. Re:How I roll by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      You might want to come up with an evidence-destruction plan that doesn't result in your filesystem timestamps showing that your work machine(which anybody from the janitor on up will be able to testify that you use daily) wasn't touched for six months after IT issued it, and then started seeing a burst of use the day after news of fed interest in you came out...

      On a modern OS/system software setup of any complexity, generating convincing fake timestamps and system activity is a bit on the nontrivial side. If the investigator has little or no evidence about your computer habits, or circumstantial evidence of what you've done, it isn't too hard; but if they have enough circumstantial evidence to work from, you might face issues.

      This would be especially the case in a somewhat paranoid corporate environment(which I would imagine a hedge fund is). Even in my(far less tight-wound) shop, you would probably get a visit from IT to figure out WTF is going on were your machine to suddenly leap back 6 months in patch/AV update status, or (while retaining the same MAC) turn into a linux box or a non-domain windows machine from time to time... In an environment where IT is running scared about corporate espionage, Sarbanes-Oxley, or even just the rigors of dealing with backups of high value files on a mobile workforce of laptops, they would almost certainly be considerably more attentive.

      Especially if the company has a strong reason to want to throw you under the bus(large, secretive hedge fund? You. Fucking. Bet. that they want the SEC/Fed investigation to end as soon as possible, ideally with just a couple of disposable peons "acting without authorization", as they say...) they would likely prove quite cooperative in helping to prove that you were hiding something. Particularly if that reduced their odds of having to hand over much larger swaths of their data/backups to investigators.

    8. Re:How I roll by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting your HDD swapped in between the time the cops are busting in your doors and windows and when they pin you to the ground.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:How I roll by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd rather be fired than go to prison. Plus it's a lot easier to get further work if you're fired than it is if you're fired because you were convicted of violating regulations. Violating them is usually something that's fine, but getting caught isn't.

  6. White collar... by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Red sleeves.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:White collar... by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      What an excellent phrase. I'm going to have to use that from now on.

    2. Re:White collar... by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Having recently seen the anime Baccano!, This statement is much funnier.

      However I shouldn't embarass myself by comparing Claire to such horrible people.

      (spoilers intentionally averted)

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  7. admission of guilt? by v1 · · Score: 1

    if they prove deliberate destruction of evidence, doesn't that constitute admission of guilt? or some other loss-by-default?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:admission of guilt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not, at least under US law, because of the Fifth Amendment. All it proves is that the evidence destroyed might have been able to implicate the defendant for something. You can't prove that this "something" was the crime they're actually being tried for, and you can't force the defendant to tell you.

      You might be able to do something with things like obstruction of justice or interfering with a police investigation, though.

    2. Re:admission of guilt? by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      I destroyed evidence that I donated to wikileaks. Does that mean I should be thrown in jail?

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    3. Re:admission of guilt? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      IANAL; but my understanding is that it doesn't constitute an admission of guilt per se(particularly in these days of high-capacity hard drives, there would be no reasonable way to bound the number of things you could have been guilty of with just one HDD...); but, destruction of evidence and/or "obstruction of justice" are typically crimes in themselves.

      If they have a recording of you describing how you ripped apart and surreptitiously disposed of your HDD after you heard that the feds were on your trail, those charges are going to be very hard to dodge...

      Merely destroying your hard drive, out of caution or paranoia, and then learning later that the feds would really have liked to have a look through it, is one thing; but if you are caught on tape describing why you destroyed it, game over, man.

    4. Re:admission of guilt? by dsavage · · Score: 1

      Good question... I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt it. It probably falls under circumstantial evidence. It's kind of like ramming a file down the barrel of a gun you just shot someone with. They can't use ballistics to prove it, but they might be able to use hair/fiber/residue something else that you might find on one of the CSI:Hoboken shows... (It seems like they have one for every other city...why _not_ Hoboken?)

      More likely than not, it just gives the police reason to fixate on you, (and try and build a better case,) than eliminating other suspects.
      -D

    5. Re:admission of guilt? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      My understanding was that unless you are already aware of a warrant when you destroy the evidence, it's not obstruction of justice. Even then, obstructions of justice might be better than what you could get otherwise.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:admission of guilt? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      If they prove destruction of evidence, they prove obstruction of justice. A hard drive can be disposed of in incredibly suspicious circumstances out of the want of thoroughness just as easily as the want of a conspiratorial cover-up.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:admission of guilt? by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      That'd definitely not fly in the US. "You destroyed the drive, so it obviously contains evidence of insider trading. And tax evasion. And pictures of you buggering a horse..."

    8. Re:admission of guilt? by zn0k · · Score: 1

      No? Mainly because donating to wikileaks is not a crime, and most certainly not a crime worth jail time? As opposed to insider trading?

    9. Re:admission of guilt? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Informative

      if they prove deliberate destruction of evidence, doesn't that constitute admission of guilt? or some other loss-by-default?

      No, but it does allow the prosecutor to give the jury instructions that they may make a adverse inference[1] as to the contents of the destroyed relevant evidence from the fact that the defendant knowingly (sometimes even negligently) destroyed it. Essentially, they are telling the jury that they can infer that the evidence would weaken the defendant's case from the fact that he willfully destroyed it.[2] The jury is not required to make such an inference but it may -- as contrasted from the fact that prosecutors are forbidden from trying to make adverse inferences from a refusal to testify based on 5A grounds, such jury instructions would be illegal and the whole conviction overturned.

      This is a very onerous instruction and so is reserved for cases in which it was shown that the destruction was knowing or negligent but it's necessary in order for the discovery system to work. In the absence of a adverse inference rule, litigants would have a very strong incentive to preemptively destroy any incriminating evidence as soon as they became aware of an investigation or a lawsuit. In cases against corporations in which internal emails/documents play a pivotal role in proving that the behavior was part of a pattern/policy of the company (and not merely a rogue employee) this would be fatal to the plaintiff/State. The same logic applies in cases against the State[3] where they refuse to disclose evidence that might be favorable to the defendant.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
      [2] http://vegaslitigator.com/blog/?cat=50 (discussing the Nevada statute, not the Federal one, but many parallels and the same basic concepts exist).
      [3] http://legalholds.typepad.com/legalholds/2009/04/negligent-destruction-of-evidence-is-sufficient-to-support-an-adverse-inference-instruction-although.html An interesting case in which police destruction of evidence helps to get defendants off the hook because they allege that the destroyed evidence would undermine the State's case. IOW, the adverse-inference doctrine cuts both for and against the State. The defendants did eventually convince the court that the radio communications were relevant.

    10. Re:admission of guilt? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      So they suspect an actual crime.
      They know you destroyed *something*.

      The mere fact that you wanted to cover *something* up does not mean you wanted to cover up what they suspect you did.

      You could have been covering up something merely socially damaging but not illegal like a conservative republican senator destroying a drive when he fears that it will come out that he's having lots of gay sex and the pictures to prove it were on the drive.

    11. Re:admission of guilt? by getSalled · · Score: 1

      It is an admission of guilt but the problem is you don't know what crime the contents of the drive showed he committed. He _could_ have had 10,000 illegally downloaded mp3s and didn't want to fork over billions to the RIAA.

    12. Re:admission of guilt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but your use of multiple accounts means that you should be modded troll.

    13. Re:admission of guilt? by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. It's apparently rarely used, but it's called adverse inference. If you improperly destroy evidence that's relevant to a court case you're involved in, and you do it in such a way that it convinces the court you specifically did it to affect the outcome of that particular case, they absolutely can.

      Is it 100% fair? No, but the idea is the hardship caused is the fault of the person who tried to cheat. The rules say you have to turn over evidence when the court comes knocking. (The 5th amendment only protects against testimony, not evidence. The state can compel you to let them look at evidence.)

  8. Moral of the Story by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Informative

    So what do we learn kids? Don't talk about the skeezy shit you do to anyone: friend, family, coworker, or other. If you do bad shit, keep it to yourself.

    At the small town bars I used to hang out in we had a saying, "Loose lips get hit."

    It would appear that the hammer of justice follows a similar rule of thumb.

    1. Re:Moral of the Story by Princeofcups · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what do we learn kids? Don't talk about the skeezy shit you do to anyone: friend, family, coworker, or other. If you do bad shit, keep it to yourself.

      You've never worked in trading (IT end), have you? These guys are immune from normal laws. At the CBOT in Chicago, there were drug dealers selling coke right outside the front doors. The police were NEVER to be found. And there was a lot of buying, piles of coke spilled on the bathroom floors, etc. Most of the traders were college football players/econ majors. I kid you not. They need to be large and imposing to get seen/push their way around on the trading floor. The company I worked for would burn them out at a rapid pace.

      Anyway, this kind of talk was quite common. When you are above the law, who cares, you know? When the worse prison sentence you can get is a 3 month vacation at golf course, who cares?

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    2. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would appear that the hammer of justice follows a similar rule of thumb.

      The hammer of justice, eh? Rule of thumb, eh?

      Ouch, man.

    3. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This says more about the place you worked, than the financial industry in general.

    4. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do we learn kids? Don't talk about the skeezy shit you do to anyone: friend, family, coworker, or other. If you do bad shit, keep it to yourself.

      You've never worked in trading (IT end), have you? These guys are immune from normal laws. At the CBOT in Chicago, there were drug dealers selling coke right outside the front doors. The police were NEVER to be found. And there was a lot of buying, piles of coke spilled on the bathroom floors, etc. Most of the traders were college football players/econ majors. I kid you not. They need to be large and imposing to get seen/push their way around on the trading floor. The company I worked for would burn them out at a rapid pace.

      Anyway, this kind of talk was quite common. When you are above the law, who cares, you know? When the worse prison sentence you can get is a 3 month vacation at golf course, who cares?

      Proof. Citations?

    5. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loose lips sink ships

      It's an older than old phrase.

    6. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought it was 'loose lips sink ships'...

    7. Re:Moral of the Story by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      A general rule I've used more than once, which seems pretty damned obvious but just never seems to be followed very much is: If you want to keep a secret, the first step is don't tell anyone.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    8. Re:Moral of the Story by benjamindees · · Score: 2

      Most of the traders were college football players/econ majors. I kid you not. They need to be large and imposing to get seen/push their way around on the trading floor.

      From the field to the trading floor, alumni links help athletes find jobs

      This is fairly well established. I've had two people tell me this before, both in positions to know.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    9. Re:Moral of the Story by NoSig · · Score: 2

      You hear about more secrets that were told because the secrets that weren't told are mostly still secrets.

    10. Re:Moral of the Story by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      Did you personally call the police? No? If not, why would you expect that anyone else would have?

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    11. Re:Moral of the Story by Danse · · Score: 1

      A general rule I've used more than once, which seems pretty damned obvious but just never seems to be followed very much is: If you want to keep a secret, the first step is don't tell anyone.

      Anyone who's as big of a douchebag asshole as this guy wouldn't be able to resist the chance to tell someone how clever he is.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    12. Re:Moral of the Story by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      It is a small town. We manage to fuck up/modify everything we can get our dirty little hands on.

    13. Re:Moral of the Story by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Also, it's a land locked town, so I doubt anything having to do with ships would have any bearing on most of the bar patrons. Now, getting punched in the face, direct relevance.

    14. Re:Moral of the Story by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      How long ago was this? My understanding is that almost everything is electronic now, so being able to push people around in the pit doesn't help much these days...

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    15. Re:Moral of the Story by c_jonescc · · Score: 1

      Yeah - we've seen a lot of evidence that the financial industry is full of above the board, buttoned down types. None of the riff raff that would bring down the global economy in shady dealings for a quick buck.

      Right?

      --
      Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
    16. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Chicago worker who occasionally rubs shoulders with yuppies, I'd say that your description of CBOT is quite accurate. And the sad thing is that everyday the CPD throws kids from the South and West sides into County for far less.

    17. Re:Moral of the Story by horza · · Score: 1

      Probably the lack of Wall Street traders mugging grannies on their lunch break to feed their coke habit.

      Phillip.

    18. Re:Moral of the Story by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      It would appear that is not the case here, I don't think there will be much golf involved.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    19. Re:Moral of the Story by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      At the CBOT in Chicago, there were drug dealers selling coke right outside the front doors. The police were NEVER to be found. And there was a lot of buying, piles of coke spilled on the bathroom floors, etc.

      Thanks. I really miss the '80s now.

  9. Fantasy. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    It would have been very nice if we could conclude, "But the joke was on him because a passing Google streetview truck intercepted, downloaded, cached and indexed the hard disk's data, all dressed up and ready to be data mined by the investigators..." But alas, no such luck.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  10. Why didn't he wait for a full moon? by g01d4 · · Score: 2

    And these guys are supposed to be incredibly brilliant? Good thing he used baggies. Wouldn't want them to get dirty in the trash.

  11. Destruction of Evidence not reciprocal by Tekfactory · · Score: 2

    Great so he destroyed everything he had, if he's the trader, then someone at the companies he traded in will know the information given to him.

    Not only did he not get his own mailservers, he didn't get their mailservers, his accomplices hard drives, the coorperation of his colleague Mr. Freeman or anyone else that is going to turn evidence on him to get their own sentences commuted.

    The Prisoners Dilemma in the 21st century: Everyone Encrypts (phones, emails, hard drives) and Nobody Talks. Otherwise somebody is going to have evidence pinned on them, then its just a race to be the first in line to rat the others out.

  12. Why 2 versions of this story? by unitron · · Score: 2

    Why are there 2 seemingly identical versions of this story on the main page? This isn't the time-honored Slashdot tradtion of dupes from different editors who didn't check with each other, this is more clone than dupe, and it's been happening a lot every since this horrible new design was rolled out.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    1. Re:Why 2 versions of this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are there 2 seemingly identical versions of this story on the main page? This isn't the time-honored Slashdot tradtion of dupes from different editors who didn't check with each other, this is more clone than dupe, and it's been happening a lot every since this horrible new design was rolled out.

      It's so cute, some people STILL think Slashdot has "editors"...

    2. Re:Why 2 versions of this story? by Relayman · · Score: 1

      If I understand your question correctly, I think you are seeing the firehose version of the story as well. It was there before the redesign, too.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    3. Re:Why 2 versions of this story? by unitron · · Score: 1

      But it's not marked "Firehose" anymore.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. Re:Why 2 versions of this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..since this horrible new design was rolled out.

      Of all the things to fuck up this horrible new design fucks up the width. No matter how big I make my browser window, slashdot makes it wider and spills off both edges.

      There used to be those trolls posting garbage that made everyone's browsers go too wide, now slashdot is doing it for them. The new slashcode sucks.

      It's clear that no one tested this crap before it went live. Where is the "I don't want to experiment with alpha software" button?

    5. Re:Why 2 versions of this story? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Where is the "I don't want to experiment with alpha software" button?

      here.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Why 2 versions of this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the backup in case this guy comes here and throws first story into passing garbage truck.

  13. criminal mastermind by Jodka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...threw the s—t in the back of like random garbage trucks, different garbage trucks four different garbage trucks."

    "Mr. Longueuil's version of that night's events was recorded later, during a December meeting with former colleague..."

    After thoroughly eradicating all trace of evidence, he then told someone else what he had done. Brilliant.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:criminal mastermind by Geminii · · Score: 1

      This is assuming that (a) he actually threw any hard drives at all into any trucks, or (b) that the hard drives he threw into the trucks contained the information he says they did.

      If the prosecution digs through kilotons of garbage and gets nothing more than wasted time and money, it's not L's fault that they couldn't find the drives, or that drives they found and pulled out which LOOKED promising before the encryption was cracked contained nothing more than 500 terabytes of lolcats.

  14. That doesn't sound real by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else think that the quote sounds like one of those fake quotes you see in mail hoaxes? For instance, why would he say "I put this stuff inside my black North Face jacket", which adds nothing to the story but is something a hoaxer would put in if he saw photos of Longueuil wearing North Face products. Besides, maybe the guy wasn't a Rhodes Scholar, but I have a hard time believing the managing director of a capital management firm speaks like a valley girl.

    I'm not saying he's innocent, just that this news item doesn't look right.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:That doesn't sound real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else think that the quote sounds like one of those fake quotes you see in mail hoaxes? For instance, why would he say "I put this stuff inside my black North Face jacket", which adds nothing to the story but is something a hoaxer would put in if he saw photos of Longueuil wearing North Face products. Besides, maybe the guy wasn't a Rhodes Scholar, but I have a hard time believing the managing director of a capital management firm speaks like a valley girl.

      I'm not saying he's innocent, just that this news item doesn't look right.

      The quote is from an article inthe Wall Street Journal, not some random blog. It is a transcription from a phone tap. I don't think it can get more reliable than that, unless there were also video.

    2. Re:That doesn't sound real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance, why would he say "I put this stuff inside my black North Face jacket", which adds nothing to the story but is something a hoaxer would put in if he saw photos of Longueuil wearing North Face products.

      The "man"* does consider himself an above-the-law, beyond-ethics-and-morality financial whore, so of course I can picture him shilling for North Face for some extra cash as a result of this. Or he's throwing a wee little financial tantrum and is hoping to associate North Face with his actions as some sort of petty revenge? Dunno, just thinking aloud here.

      *: In quotes because, at face value, the word implies actual humanity.

    3. Re:That doesn't sound real by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2

      I've met people in similar positions. They get these impressive-sounding titles and an income to match. It's not that they don't work hard, but speaking to them you wouldn't think they do anything particularly special. The guy's only 34-years-old and living in NYC; he probably spends the entire weekend club-hopping like most other young people in the city. He's not some old-fashioned snob spending the weekends in the Hamptons.

      That transcript looks totally convincing to me.

    4. Re:That doesn't sound real by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2

      Does anyone else think that the quote sounds like one of those fake quotes you see in mail hoaxes? For instance, why would he say "I put this stuff inside my black North Face jacket", which adds nothing to the story but is something a hoaxer would put in if he saw photos of Longueuil wearing North Face products. Besides, maybe the guy wasn't a Rhodes Scholar, but I have a hard time believing the managing director of a capital management firm speaks like a valley girl.

      I'm not saying he's innocent, just that this news item doesn't look right.

      People in Manhattan, especially investment banker types, place a lot more value on things like the brands of their clothes than most people elsewhere. Seriously, I know a lot of people who call their jackets/sweaters/etc. "my Patagonia" or "my Northface." The actual nature of the object is less important than the designer.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    5. Re:That doesn't sound real by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > The quote is from an article inthe Wall Street Journal, not some random blog.

      Agreed, I would expect WSJ to be more likely to vet the story, but we've seen occurrences (two recently) of conventional news outlets repeating prank stories as true. Or, the story could be mostly true but the transcript could be faked. I dunno, all I'm saying is that regular people don't speak like that, but hoaxers do write like that.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:That doesn't sound real by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      They just want to make sure that the important stuff is remembered. I'm surprised they didn't add information such as the number of sad little snowflakes that landed on his unprotected back, which then greasily fell away into the dirty gravel road, or the exact temperature he experienced during his sojourn at each filthy garbage truck site, or the types of slimy things eerily leaking out of each lonely garbage truck.

      They should have, at least, mentioned the slap slap of his Nike 6.0 Mavrk Low Skate Shoe - Men's (available at Amazon.com for $59.95) against the Premium Synthetic Turf. Size 6' X 10', 46oz. Rubber Backed with Drainage Holes (also available at Amazon.com for $330.00) in the foyer of his $3,000,000 house (available from local retailer). Also, they should have denied any connection with any retailers who wished to push goods on an unsuspecting public.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    7. Re:That doesn't sound real by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      I don't know if that was "thinking" exactly.

    8. Re:That doesn't sound real by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > People in Manhattan, especially investment banker types, place a lot more value on things like the brands of their clothes than most people elsewhere.

      Yes yes, I read (the slip cover to) American Psycho also.

      But.... North Face? That's like saying "I stuffed the wreckage in the front pocket of my Robin's Egg Blue Sears Dads 'n' Lads polyester slacks".

      I mean, I could see Helly Hansen, but ... North Face? And even given that, why specify "black"? Is that, like, a designer color that costs extra?

      (BTW, don't google "dads and lads". It doesn't mean what it used to... Ye gods...)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:That doesn't sound real by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Now that sounds more like American Psycho.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:That doesn't sound real by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      :-)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:That doesn't sound real by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      You're right, it's an astroturf campaing for North Face jackets. North Face - Never Stop Exploring. Available at fine stores everywhere.

    12. Re:That doesn't sound real by artor3 · · Score: 1

      For instance, why would he say "I put this stuff inside my black North Face jacket", which adds nothing to the story

      Ever read American Psycho?

    13. Re:That doesn't sound real by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      If you're doing illegal stuff you have to talk like a gangster. Duh!

    14. Re:That doesn't sound real by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      I heard he said it on Oprah, and she kicked him off the show, and the audience applauded.

    15. Re:That doesn't sound real by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      As an example, check out any private university campus in the northeast - North Face is both a fashion and status symbol. There's a particular style of North Face fleece jacket that's basically standard issue for sorority girls, and many guys wear similar ones. Mostly black. Girls can choose any color of course.

      Patagonia is similar, and though it has a fairly different image from North Face, for many it's still a desirable fashion/status brand. Both those brands realize this, and they market to two segments - those that want high-quality outdoor clothing (which they both make - the quality really is excellent for both of those brands), and those who want the logo.

      In any case, it's worlds away from anything in Sears, and both those who appreciate high quality high performance outdoor clothing and those who want it for the fashion and status aspect realize that.

      I don't live in Manhattan, but I have several friends who do (I am from Western New York, and many people from here go to New York to find a good job since there are none in WNY) and I've been there many times. It really is like American Psycho for a lot of people. Not just New York, of course, but it's a good example.

      Personally, I care about wearing good-looking and high-quality clothing, but I don't like branding. I don't buy things with visible logos. Most better (but non-luxury) brands understand this desire, and always offer at least a portion of their products without overt logos, or at least with subtle ones. I do have a North Face rain/wind jacket, actually, that has their standard-placement logo - but it was on clearance for a good price, is very high quality, fits perfectly, and looks good, so I'm not complaining too much about that one.

  15. Re:Nice try, nothing to see here by RingDev · · Score: 1

    What value are these individuals creating?

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  16. Why not use Mafia methods? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    It's a Sicilian Message: your hard drive sleeps with the fishes. Toss the hard drives into the Atlantic from your yacht. Let the salt water take care of the rest. Or encase them into cement at a construction site. The old, time-tested methods are the best.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Why not use Mafia methods? by VorpalRodent · · Score: 3, Funny

      I tried to stuff a horse's head into my computer case. Sure enough, now the computer won't turn on. That'll teach those drives to offer up incriminating evidence!

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    2. Re:Why not use Mafia methods? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      That jargon is meant to protect mobsters from prosecution since they're well aware that the law might be listening. This guy was either so arrogant he thought he had outsmarted the law or simply not sophisticated enough to tie up the loose ends (and lips).

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Why not use Mafia methods? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Actually, he wouldn't even need a yacht because all of New York City is near some sort of waterfront. All he had to do was drive to some part of it well away from both his home and his office and toss it off the end of a random pier. Or, if that's not good enough, take a ride on the Staten Island Ferry and drop it over the side.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:Why not use Mafia methods? by mogness · · Score: 1

      This made me laugh quite audibly, making me look like a schmuck in my office. Bravo sir.

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
  17. Think big by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

    If you're not using encryption to protect evidence more incriminating that the mere use of encryption itself, you need to up your game.

  18. Re:Nice try, nothing to see here by snkiz · · Score: 1

    Are you on Crack? Traders are the bottom feeders of society. They produce absolutely nothing of value, destroy companies and ruin lives all for the sake of a quarter point. Never before in history have so many gotten so rich on the backs of others while contributing nothing back to society

  19. "4 different garbage trucks.." by kheldan · · Score: 1

    ..that all end up in the same landfill. I'm sure the feds won't have any problems collecting all the pieces. Also I doubt they dismantled the drives down to the platters and scattered the platters.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:"4 different garbage trucks.." by jackbird · · Score: 2

      They might end up in the same landfill, but there's no guarantee they'd get there even on the same barge. New York City has 8 million residents and generates over 36,000 tons of garbage a day. That's a lot of garbage to go through even if they thought Osama was hiding in it.

  20. Wall St Hedge Funds? by LordNacho · · Score: 2

    "We all know Slashdotters love debating the best way to wipe a hard drive clean. Looks like tech-savvy Wall Street Hedge Fund managers also know the best way to do it. From the WSJ article: 'Mr. Longueuil's version of that night's events was recorded later, during a December meeting with former colleague Mr. Freeman, who by then was cooperating with the government and recording conversations, according to the U.S. complaint. "F—in' pulled the external drives apart," Mr. Longueuil told Mr. Freeman during their meeting, according to the criminal complaint. "Put 'em into four separate little baggies, and then at 2 a.m. 2 a.m. on a Friday night, I put this stuff inside my black North Face jacket, and leave the apartment and I go on like a twenty block walk around the city and try to find a, a garbage truck and threw the s—t in the back of like random garbage trucks, different garbage trucks four different garbage trucks."'"

    We usually mean banks or the exchange when we speak about Wall Street. If you need a location-based idiom for Hedge Funds, Greenwich CT works. Or Mayfair if you're in London. And yes, banks are different from Hedge Funds. Don't mix up your villains please.

    1. Re:Wall St Hedge Funds? by BBTaeKwonDo · · Score: 1

      The hedge fund in question is actually in Stamford, not Greenwich (they share a border).

    2. Re:Wall St Hedge Funds? by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      That works too.

  21. White dress criminals ARE smarter by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    So they should continue to receive the lighter sentences. Right?

    Lindsay Lohan seems to get off with no jail time at all.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:White dress criminals ARE smarter by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      She has to be Lindsay Lohan. Isn't that punishment enough?

  22. Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dammit. These are the people who give Republicans a bad name!

    If it's not Consolidated Lint it's just fuzz!

  23. Re:Nice try, nothing to see here by LordNacho · · Score: 1

    I suppose one could feed the troll with something along this line:

    Insider traders know what's going on in a company, and thus have a better idea of where the stock price should be. The right stock price would signal to society which enterprises are worthwhile investments, which stops wastage on the wrong investments, and encourages investment in the right ones. This clearly has value.

    Anyway, I don't really want to go into why it's bad for some people to trade on insider information. Seems a bit trite.

  24. Re:Nice try, nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely you are not so dense that you are unable to tell the difference between a Winner and a Cheater. Both can make billions of dollars but their methods are high class versus low class. Just because you make a lot of money doesn't mean everything you do is legal or honest.

  25. Come on, not libertarian... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    We like listening to your paranoid libertarian-esque prattle.

    As a libertarian, I take offense - we are individualistic but reasonable and realistic.

    The kind of derangement on display comes only from those on the hardest right and hardest left, the intersection of Birthers and Truthers smelted into a big pot of crazy.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Come on, not libertarian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you mean a big tea pot of crazy? jk

    2. Re:Come on, not libertarian... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'm also a Tea Party participant at times - they are all people just interested in fiscal discipline (Libertarian, Democrat and Republican), not in forcing the government to remove mind control drugs from marshmallows or whatever.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. criminal mastermind oops i forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I probably would have went with forgot pass as hey pete suggested on encrypted and after 2 or 3 attempts call it a security measure when it runs a script to wipe the drive as an added measure
    between naughty deeds and the i didn't go to a porn site claims . one should really take a poll to see how many people actually claim they hadn't .Or atleast how much the average tech hears that excuse .He couldn't have been that bright as the guy stated plastic baggies if he didn't take that walk all the time that would kind of be a tip off ....he might have been better off to stick it down storm drains added water and rust,,The vermin and water would do his work for him .

  27. What, no Thermite?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, this is slashdot.
    And why did he put them in separate baggies? To preserve his fingerprints?

  28. End mill by gblackwo · · Score: 1

    I would take the platters and make of few runs on them with a fly mill. Recover that!

    1. Re:End mill by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I would take the disks and write a single pass of /dev/zero to them. Assuming the drives were built this century, you've not a hope in hell of recovering anything from that.

    2. Re:End mill by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      Apparently the pros rewrite there disks with zeros seven times or so.

    3. Re:End mill by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Overkill. Back in the olden days when ones and zeros were literally written as up and down flips of magnetic domains, you could look at the "edges" of each track and make an educated guess at what had been written last. Since hard drives use a far more complicated encoding scheme similar to QAM as used for digital TV, you've got no idea what the bit was. If you imagine that a bit was an analogue value from 0 to 7, you can't tell if it was a 4 last time or a slightly faint 6, or a strong 2. It's gone, properly gone.

    4. Re:End mill by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      If your HD has substituted bad sectors, they will be left with whatever was on them when they 'failed'. It's entirely possible this info is perfectly legible.

    5. Re:End mill by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      That is true, but you'd have at most a couple of kilobytes of information - and it wouldn't have been mapped as bad if it wasn't hard to read. You could make a pretty good case in court that if it had to be read repeatedly and assembled up from multiple passes then it could have been doctored to say *anything*.

  29. A hole in the plan by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    When I destroy a drive, I usually have a hole in the plan. I drill right through the platters, then drop the drive down a garbage chute.

  30. I think I see the problem by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

    You're posting on Slashdot, and you actually think asking people not to reply telling you the giant hole in your plan will work?

  31. Cooking the books by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Step 1) Buy a bunch of Seagate drives and install in them in a RAID backup, connect to system and wait the required week for all drives to fail.
    Step 2) ???
    Step 3) PROFIT!!!

  32. I torch mine by codepunk · · Score: 1

    I Oxy-Propane torch my old ones into a blob of molten crap good luck with recovering that.

    --


    Got Code?
  33. Re:Here is the crux of the situation by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    It didn't have to be incrimninating. It was still evidence.

    In fact, did they receive a discovery notice, or have reason to believe they would?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  34. He could be lying by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

    If the guy had that important kind of data, then I would think that he would keep it and use it to blackmail money from other people far richer than he to truly get a pay day. I would take all of the drives, carefully store them somewhere non-obvious, and then blab ferociously how I destroyed the drives. The price for destroying evidence would seem to be far less than the actual crimes you are guilty of. The potential benefit to make sure the information didn't reach the public would be worth millions.

    --
    Bearded Dragon
  35. Nuke the drives from orbit by Subm · · Score: 1

    I say they take off and nuke the entire drives from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1MspmfEwg

  36. Data non-recovery 101 by Plekto · · Score: 1

    As for the idiot in question, yes, there's backups of this guy's stuff online and elsewhere - he's not getting off. Nothing you do via email or online or blackberry/etc is ever "gone". And the courts assume you're guilty as charged if they catch you destroying evidence like this. The penalties for destruction of electronic data in legal cases are quite severe, as in simply proceed to arbitrary judgment and sentencing, because you just lost your case. Shoot, the penalties for simply not keeping adequate backups of such data are almost as bad.

    But for normal data deletion, my favorite method is to take off the cover, remove or park the head mechanism, and dump in a teaspoon or so of diatamaceous earth. Let the motor spin for a minute or so. This is best done if you prepare beforehand and have the screws off. Get it running, park the heads, dump the sand/etc in and quickly close the cover. Makes impressive noises as well. Always a hit with bystanders. :)

    Sometimes I take the platters apart and rub them with some sandpaper. Then there's always the 5 lb sledgehammer, though glass fragments can be an issue. (sharp doesn't begin to cover platter material - it's tempered and simply brutal stuff to try to clean up)

    What's your favorite way to take care of your old drives?

    1. Re:Data non-recovery 101 by luther349 · · Score: 1

      i use the moving train method to destroy my old drives. set drive on track the metal rail. let train run it over. it turns the drive into parts of a drive heh. lucky for me i live near some tracks and a busy fright line. but in any case no matter how extreme you destroy the drive if they really what the data they will recover it. but its just the norm for me to destroy my failed disk and use real deletion methods encryption etc. mostly due the fact corps have gone insane on sueing everyone for anything.

    2. Re:Data non-recovery 101 by Plekto · · Score: 1

      They say that they can recover anything, but if the surface is sand-blasted or otherwise ground away, well, it's gone. Shoot, even writing all 0s and then nuking the partition and fat tables will fry the data well enough, but destroying a drive is so much more fun. And a lot quicker, as well. ;)

    3. Re:Data non-recovery 101 by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I live near the Pacific Ocean. There's nothing like sea water inside a drive for making sure they'll never recover the data, especially if the drive's been dropped over the side of a fishing boat. Oops!

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  37. This guy was dumb... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Get a large Electro-Magnet. Like a Bulk Mag Tape Eraser.. It'll wipe out the drive quickly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcjMDfx4G_A

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  38. Trading culture by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2

    I was there in the mid-90s when this behavior was beginning to wind down, but still going on. We saw coke-sniffing in the bathrooms (I don't recall seeing the drug dealers anywhere). Our company favored wrestlers (if I recall correctly one fellow had an Olympic bronze in Greco-Roman), and nobody sought the cerebral types. I would say the drinking culture was still very heavy.

    The whole thing has calmed down a lot since electronic trading took over almost everything -- no longer do you need to physically push the other fellow aside to get the trade. Nowadays even golf isn't really that common a pursuit. London was always more extreme and stayed wild a bit longer I hear.

    Of course, some might argue that the world economy was better off when traders were dumb jocks rather than clever eggheads who know what a hard drive platter is.

    1. Re:Trading culture by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Wait, physically pushing other stock brokers would prevent them from trading in a legal way? That's insane! Though that should result in a division of labor where the clever guy tells the brute idiot to go actually perform the trades. Like the military you don't let the grunts run the show. If they were all professional wrestlers it might be fun to go the stock exchange just to watch the fights.

    2. Re:Trading culture by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2

      The floor traders couldn't be idiots, and actually had to be pretty fast and accurate with simple mental arithmetic, but calculus was pretty tough for most of them. And yes, physical jostling was part of the job. It's not a push like an NFL block...more like one notch below NBA jostling under the basket for rebounds (and less intense at that because they have to keep it up for 7 hours, while trying to trade). The idea is that when a favorable trade is called out, you want to be the guy in front whose hand signal is seen and calls are heard.

      Also as you infer, in many cases the "paper" (or big industry players) would indeed call down to the floor to have the grunts pull off big trades. There were fights too, to the degree that a schedule of fines existed for specific acts of violence. I recall it wasn't super-detailed but definitely distinguished a single punch from a full (attempted) beatdown.

  39. lost time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't think it is valid to multiply 5 sec x 100 million spam recipients and conclude that one spam mailing costs society as much as a murder. Would the recipients really have gotten 5 sec more work done, and would those seconds add up to any actual benefit to society.

    For that matter, how many spam mailings have been sent worldwide since the start of the internet? By the reasoning of your post, once the spammers have sent more mailings than there are people on earth, spam will have caused as much harm to human society as the extinction of the planet.

  40. DBAN by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Darik's boot and nuke. It's what I use whenever I want to hide my shady stock market trades...I mean...delete old church sermons.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  41. Jimmy Two-Times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put 'em into four separate little baggies, and then at 2 a.m. 2 a.m. on a Friday night... try to find a, a garbage truck and threw the s—t in the back of like random garbage trucks, different garbage trucks four different garbage trucks.

    Yup, almost sounds like him.

  42. just don't use a hard drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bootable DVD and no hard drive perfectly reasonable with no history

  43. points deducted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting idea but shashdotters will deduct points because he didn't use an open source garbage truck....

  44. John Quincy Adams and slavery by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Our forebears, men like John Quincy Adams, worked tirelessly until slavery was extinguished. - Michelle Bachmann

    I get the attempt at humor and any and all politicians are fair game. But perhaps Bachmann did something few expected and actually made an accurate historical reference:
    "Adams was elected a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts after leaving office, the only president ever to do so, serving for the last 17 years of his life with far greater success than he had achieved in the presidency. Animated by his growing revulsion against slavery, Adams became a leading opponent of the Slave Power and argued that if a civil war ever broke out the president could abolish slavery by using his war powers, a correct prediction of Abraham Lincoln's use of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Adams predicted the dissolution of the Union on the slavery issue, though he mistakenly predicted that if the South became independent there would be a series of bloody slave insurrections.[" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams

  45. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use knopix cd for OS. No hard drive needed.
    Only put information on a CD or dvd
    Keep the stack of DVD's on a spindle in a microwave with a analog timer IE you only have to plug it in when the timer is turned on for the thing to turn on.
    Have this on a good battery backup.

    Have a power on switch or a 6 way adapter running to the microwave. If anything hits the fan you hit the button all the DVD's are fried through and through. Makes pretty collors as well. ;)

  46. mil != micron by trb · · Score: 1

    Truly sir, 20 mils == 508 microns. Make sure you're protected.

  47. Re:Nice try, nothing to see here by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    Insider trading also refers to trades made between insiders to drive up the amount of shares being traded. This can make it appear that a stock is getting a lot of activity and hence generate interest and a rise in the price of the stock. Which can then be manipulated by the insiders to sell their shares at the inflated price.

    A quick example:

    Bob and Jim are buddies who own lots of stock in the same company. They collude with each other to sell their shares back and forth for increasingly higher prices such that they both neither gain or lose money and shares. They do this in such a way that it is not immediately apparent to any outsiders.

    Dave an outsider doesn't know who is selling or buying the stock he just sees lots of trading activity and that the price is steadily climbing. Not wanting to be left out in the cold on what appears to be a hot stock he jumps at the chance to buy all the shares he can afford when he has a chance to at a price above yesterday's value but slightly lower than the most current trade, which was offered by Bob or Jim.

    Bob and Jim find enough Dave's to sell their stock to at the price that they have artificially inflated it to and take a vacation. The stock settles back to where it was and all those Daves instantly have less value than they thought they were purchasing.

    This can actually be pulled off by a single share holder if they are clever enough with using proxies and what not. This kind of con is part of what led to the creation of the SEC. And the way our market's transactions are handled today are specifically geared to make this harder to accomplish.

  48. Re:Here is the crux of the situation by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Evidence of what, exactly?

    I mean, really, in order for destruction of evidence to stand against someone, doesn't it have to be evidence of something that was actually illegal?

    For example, I can burn my grocery receipts in my fireplace at home, but destroying evidence that I purchased them... but purchasing them was not against the law, so destroying the evidence of that is not illegal.

    While admittedly what this person did may be suspicious, I would think they would need some actual reason to believe that the stuff he destroyed would have actually proved some real wrongdoing.

  49. SEC Laws probably apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, if this was a private citizen, not SEC related, I don't see how this is "obstruction of justice". I own a HDD. I can destroy it as I like. Whenever I like. It is too bad if the data on it is something someone else wants. This is why corporations need document destruction policies and need to force emails to be wiped constantly. email should never be a "system of record." Diskless workstations, yep, that's the answer.

    a) Encrypt everything with a long-ass passphrase (50+ character) using truecrypt
    b) 4 drilled holes from a power drill into the disk drive

    Call that destroyed.

    I've accidentally desctroyed HDDs by dropping it while it was running. It never worked again - used the drill on that one just to be certain any sensitive data was unavailable - you know, like my quicken data.

    So if this was SEC laws, then I bet there's something in those rule that prevent deletion of any transactions.

  50. So, about that new destination... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So don't be so quick to judge a horse who is hundreds of miles from her new destinations, when the other horses are still struggling to leave the derelict barn.

    A glue factory?

  51. Re:Here is the crux of the situation by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    "For example, I can burn my grocery receipts in my fireplace at home, but destroying evidence that I purchased them... but purchasing them was not against the law, so destroying the evidence of that is not illegal."

    Absolutely. But if you were being investigated for securites fraud, and the SEC notified you of that, destroying any of your business records would probably fall under the heading of destroying evidence, and I suspect you're in hot water.

    And in today's environment, your personal email is not off limits. Not evern your phone records, expecially your emails to and from your phone.

    In fact, I suspect that SEC regs states that you're supposed to preserve these records, so that's probably enough for administrative action. These guys went way past that. There are situations in securities law where the records are important, whether they confirm or disprove your guilt or innocence.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  52. Nice analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the Phantom Menace grossed $430 million in the US at approx $6 a ticket, or 72 million views at two hours... Mrs Lucas's little boy wiped out two million. And that was just viewing the damn thing.

  53. He got pegged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pro'ly by all the front-doors slammed in his face by the victims in his serial ... I only watched. He did it.

  54. thermite wipe by argontechnologies · · Score: 1

    I prefer a generous amount of thermite to permanently erase (melt) hard drive data. 100% effective in less than 20 seconds.

    1. Re:thermite wipe by __aaxtnf2500 · · Score: 1

      As long as we're being ridiculous, how about a Direct Current Reverse Polarity Cutter running on dual 400-amp welders and 100PSI air. Guarantee 24 vertical inches of hard disks will be little more than a large glowing pool of metal in about 5 seconds. Or as long as we are doing things that will get us charged for constructing an IED, how about just make a damn EFP and smash those platters into a plastic metal sandwich in 10ms. Or just be smart and properly encrypt your data so this is all unnecessary.

  55. Put Anon in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I think we should put Anonymous in charge of the Internet. They're not perfect, but at least with them the definitions of Free Speech would not be "The freedom to say what you want - so long as we agree with it".
    True, they would allow any kind of domain, even .nazi since they know better than to be offended by speech, but that's a price I'm more than willing to pay.

  56. DBAN - Quick and easy wipe by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

    DBAN is probably the best tool for the job - quick AND easy.

    However, He may not have had time. Sometimes it really is a case of pull the hardware out and run.

    If you do have time, Truecrypt can be a very useful tool for removing data. At the very least, it could make data recovery quite expensive.

    Nothing beats power tools and strong chemicals.

    I used to pull old drives apart and use the magnets, spacers, hard drive platters and other bits from the drive to make a wind chime (or a wind clang .. depending on your point of view).

    First of all, the hard drives get a format, then get encrypted a couple of times, then get a good scouring, finally, random holes punched through various locations with a drill - for aesthetic purposes (of course).

    Watching them hang outside in the rain, rusting away, thinking that one day someone may feel the need to take them down and try and get the data off of the platters is always a good upper.

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  57. Not a hard drive by awacs · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one to notice that the title and the summary talks about hard drives, but Mr. Longueuil is described in the details as have ripped apart flash drives with pliers?

  58. Adverse Inference needs to be made unconsitutional by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    The government have massive resources to acquire evidence. Disallowing adverse inference will put the game back in balance in favor of the little guy, a protection provided by the 5th amendment.

    If the prosecution thinks they have a case and will win, they should not need to worry about defendants destroying any evidence.

  59. Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 seconds per spam * 10 spams which get past the filters * 100 million recipients works out to 158 man-years of time lost. The sum total of the injury caused by this spammer is actually greater than killing a person.

    Ouch. Your arithmetic doesn't compute here. That's reducing the "worth" of a person's life to the (work?) time ot this life.

    Do you want to go there? I don't.

  60. Drawing attention by dugeen · · Score: 1

    A man walking round throwing stuff into 'garbage trucks' at 2 am is drawing attention to himself in a way that a man casually disposing of bags into litter bins in daylight is not.

  61. Re:Nice try, nothing to see here by LordNacho · · Score: 1

    Good example. FYI this trick used to be legal. Have a look at the book "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator" by Edwin Lefebvre.

  62. Or... one random pass by definate · · Score: 1

    Wow, this was the stupidest way to get rid of an incriminating drive. Seriously, I do this with really old drives that I can't be bothered wiping, but this is the sort of thing you should be wiping.

    Additionally, it doesn't even take much. Just get Darik's Boot And Nuke then boot from it, et viola.

    Also remember, while DoD level security sounds awesome, I know from experience, one random pass is enough. If you don't believe me, you can read about it here page 1, page 2. It explains electron microscopes (the boogeyman of secure wiping), and other methods, will not, in all likelihood, be able to reliably retrieve, such that it could be entered into evidence.

    Seriously, so stupid. Besides that, encrypt from the get go, and you're as good as done!

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  63. Memo to self : by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    1. 1- Make up some packages of thermite.
    2. 2- Make up some remote-control thingie to fire them.
    3. 3- Re-install 2.5in form-factor drives inside cheap+nasty (i.e. plastic) 3.5in external drive enclosures along with batteries to fire the thermite trigger.
    4. 4- Test and revise as necessary.
    5. 5- Profit ???
    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  64. best way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    killdisk x4
    or keep two hot swappable drives, one with, one without. So there's no gaping void in the case. (idiots)