Adam Lanza Destroyed His Computer Before Rampage

it tells you one thing, at least by X0563511 · 2012-12-17 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Premeditated. This wasn't an impulsive act.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:it tells you one thing, at least by CanHasDIY · 2012-12-17 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Premeditated. This wasn't an impulsive act.
Full body kevlar (as reported by the media, anyway, though I have my doubts) isn't something people put on as an impulse, either.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by godrik · 2012-12-17 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

I heard a psychologist on NPR last week saying that most massive shooting are long time premeditated actions. Almost no shooter just goes crazy take a gun and shoot everybody. They all spend weeks at it.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by cayenne8 · 2012-12-17 08:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Full body kevlar (as reported by the media, anyway, though I have my doubts) isn't something people put on as an impulse, either.
Speak for yourself...
Some of us like to think that S.W.A.T. is a fashion statement, especially if you accessorize.
Talk about sexy on the catwalk..sporting kevlar and flashbangs!!!

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by YodasEvilTwin · 2012-12-17 08:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yeah, you'd think you'd have to work up to that sort of thing. It's too complex an action for it to just come out of someone at random; it's the result of long-term turmoil and a damaged pysche.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by alienzed · 2012-12-17 08:14 · Score: 4, Funny

I take it you don't live in New York...

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by operagost · 2012-12-17 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless. The wait should be no longer than it takes to make the federally mandated background check-- which apparently somehow needs start taking people's mental health into account. He was only 20, so the known issues he had in school should have been flagged. I imagine the privacy laws in regards to minors may be an issue.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by Talderas · 2012-12-17 08:23 · Score: 5, Informative

He didn't purchase any of the guns he used so a background check wouldn't matter. The purchaser and owner of all the weapons was his mother.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by DarkOx · 2012-12-17 08:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly.
As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day. Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns. You can't control the materials for that either without really crippling society. Any intelligent (though not necessarily sane) person who wants to hurt a large number of people in our society can find a way to do so, with or without a gun.
Guns are not the problem. The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all. Certainly its true in the 20th century, having people committed was abused. It might be unfair and cruel to lock many of these folks away in psych wards but at least they'd not be out hurting people. Lord knows I don't like health care reform the way it was done but at least some seriously disturbed people might get near to a profession who could possible declare them a threat and get something done about them.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by joh · 2012-12-17 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly.
As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day.

Not a single one of these twenty people died, though.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by pastafazou · 2012-12-17 09:17 · Score: 4, Informative

“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by Obfuscant · 2012-12-17 09:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia.
They intended no such thing. They gave one example of why the right to be armed is important, but one example is not the complete list.
Do you think all those founders who had just used their arms against the government were really thinking that the only reason people should be allowed to own a gun was so they could be part of a "well regulated militia" -- i.e., part of the government used to suppress the public should THEY ever be so uppity as to oppose a government they found to be oppressive?
What you are arguing is that the same people who just won their freedom from an oppressive, abusive government were now saying that nobody except the government (in the guise of the "well regulated militia") should have weapons. That's ridiculous.

If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia with regulation oversight from that militia (responsible gun owners having veto powers over other members, to legally disarm them ...
Well, Mr. President, those people in Tennessee are starting to get riled about those new laws we're forcing on them, you better kick them out of the "militia" and gather up all their weapons...
From the font of all human knowledge:

Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

That's a pretty clear statement about the difference between an armed populace and the militias that would be "well regulated" by the state. "The whole body of the people" is much more than any militia, in your terminology, but it truly was "the whole body of the people" to the founders. Continuing from the same article:

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.
You're now arguing that this "paramount right", what the founders thought was "a basic human right", is really intended to be a way of keeping the populace under control because it should be afforded only to those who are "part of the system", and, when the right is most needed, will be part of the problem.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by Nadaka · 2012-12-17 09:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Its really hard to flash someone with all that velcro on the vest.
You are better off with just a trench coat if you want to flash people.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by tburkhol · 2012-12-17 10:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem has two parts: mental illness and guns. In China, with no guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 20 people and none of them are dead. In the US, with prolific guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 28 people, and 26 are dead.
The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with mental illness amount to preemptive jailing of a large number of people, the vast majority of whom will never assault anyone. The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with guns amount to taking away tools, the vast majority of which will never be used in anger. Neither of those is right, but the best answer should include aspects of both. Hopefully, some reasonable people can work through the politics and come up with a reasonable solution that addresses not just extremely infrequent mass-violence, but individual shootings which have become so mundane we only hear about them when someone "interesting" is the victim.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by n7ytd · 2012-12-17 10:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all.
Please don't be so quick to say that his mother "understood things were very wrong but did nothing". What would you have her do? The guy was legally an adult, and she couldn't possibly have kept a 24-hour watch on him.
A very good friend of mine has a son with schizophrenia; people that only he can see tell him what to do. On several occasions, he has traveled over 1,000 miles because imaginary people told him to. Once he was instructed to drive across country to witness the second coming of Christ. Another time he ended up in the middle of Los Angeles and destroyed his cell phone and wallet so that "they" couldn't track him. He was instructed to set his parents' house on fire while they were at work, causing about $100K of damage and forcing the family to move out for about 6 months while it was repaired.
His parents bend over backwards to try and keep an eye on his condition and get him the help that they are able, but the guy's in his mid-twenties; if he doesn't consent to staying in the hospital more than 72 hours, they can't keep him there. He can walk, drive, or ride a bus just like anyone else. Short of keeping him locked in the basement with no shoelaces or metal utensils, what should they do?
My friend once told me that at least when he's in jail (which happens frequently), he can at least sleep knowing where his son is.
Everyone has to sleep sometime.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by painandgreed · 2012-12-17 11:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Speak for yourself...
Some of us like to think that S.W.A.T. is a fashion statement, especially if you accessorize.
Talk about sexy on the catwalk..sporting kevlar and flashbangs!!!
Ah, I remember my gothic-industrial club days.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by arf_barf · 2012-12-17 12:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Friends of mine were in the exact same boat. It's a situation without a solution. If the patient is force medicated, they are unable to function in day to day lives. If they get of the meds, it's just a matter of weeks until they land in trouble. The worst thing is, even here in California, there is virtually no State sponsored support for mentally ill people. Ultimately the solution was to send their son to Europe to spend the rest of his life in a live-in/half-way house mental clinic. It's not cheap, but it's a fraction of the cost of what it was here in the states (for a private institution) and based on his facebook updates, he lives a almost normal life.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by sudnshok · 2012-12-17 12:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Firearms account for approximately 18,000 suicides annually in the US and approximately 10,000 homicides.
So, even if we lump in homicides with your suicides AND assume homicides are committed by legal gun owners (which most times they are not): 28,000 is 0.035% of 80 million gun owners in the US, which means it is NOT the "primary purpose of owning a gun". It in fact accounts for a MINISCULE use of firearms.
The primary purposes for owning a gun - BY FAR - NOT EVEN CLOSE - are self defense and sport (including competitive shooting, recreational shooting and hunting).
Also, I suspect that you are misinformed on what an "assault rifle" is which is not your fault since the media spreads so much hysteria and disinformation...
An assault rifle is a marketing term. These rifles function EXACTLY THE SAME as semiautomatic hunting rifles. The only differences are: they look more menacing, have accessory rails and a different grip. You can buy a wooden rifle - not considered an "assault rifle" - which fires the EXACT same caliber bullets, at EXACTLY the same rate with EXACTLY the same capacity.
Also, while you did not mention it here, let me also bring up "high capacity magazines" since a lot of "anti-gun wackos" (as I'll call them) bring these up for argument. The difference between shooting a 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about 4 seconds. With just a small amount of practice, anyone can reload in under 2 seconds.

--
People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
Re:it tells you one thing, at least by doggo · 2012-12-18 01:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yup. Like the detectives who investigated the murder of my last girlfriend, (and I paraphrase) most murders happen to people involved, in some way, in crime. The cops were pissed 'cause she was a "civilian". Violent crime happens mostly to criminals, and the poor.
After that, it's crimes of passion (Yeah, I was the prime suspect for a few hours.)
My girlfriend was innocent, she had a degree from a prestigious university, and was successfully working in her field and building a career. She was 26.
So, numbers are numbers, and there are exceptions. FWIW, no weapons were involved, firearms or otherwise. The Chicago Police caught the murderer a week later. He was convicted 3 years later. He was 17, he'll serve 45 years without parole.
My point is, crime happens. These shootings happen. And they are certainly regrettable. But the news media blow it way out of proportion.
There are too many guns in the U.S., too many arsenals. I'm a gun owner too. But I know we have a problem.
But it's less the guns, than it is the society. There's too much fear in the U.S. That's what the suburban arsenals are all about. Fear. Read a gun or knife forum, these guys talk like they're walking around in a war zone. When in reality, they live in relatively safe communities.
It's not only the fear, it's lack of mental healthcare, and healthcare in general (see the stats on suicide by firearms). It's lack of community. It's lack of social support. It's poverty, unemployment, and anger at not being able to achieve the "American Dream" we all grew up believing in. And the stupid drug laws that put marijuana smokers in hardcore prison for the equivalent of drinking a six-pack. But let's drunk drivers stay on the street.

Rookie by kc67 · 2012-12-17 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Should have used DBAN.

He was on Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 07:59 · Score: 5, Funny

His behaviors match that of typical anonymous posters.

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do anything this guy did? Maybe he was just a crazy paranoid asshole.

100 more will die today by ShanghaiBill · 2012-12-17 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides. Dwelling on massacres like Sandy Hook is not really a good idea for many reasons. Most gun homicides are committed with handguns, by people with long records of violent crime, and are done more often than not in heated emotion. But these school massacres fit none of those patterns. They are usually done with rifles, by people that are "odd" and loners but without any record of violent crime, and they are usually meticulously planned. In many ways these make them the hardest violent acts to prevent. We should focus on preventing more on the everyday killings, many of which should be preventable, instead of focusing too much on the black swans where any plausible effort is unlikely to make much difference.

We should try to learn from history: On January 17th, 1989 Patrick Purdy walked into a school yard in Stockton, California, and opened fire on the children playing there, killing five and wounding 29. In the months that followed, legislation was rushed through to outlaw rifles similar in appearance to the one he used. Back in those days, it was common for gun owners to support "common sense" gun control. But they watched gun control advocates, who often claimed that they wanted to restrict handguns and not hunting guns such as rifles and shotguns, use this tragedy to push through bans on rifles and only rifles, and do so on the basis of appearance (shape of the grip, bayonet stud, etc.) rather than functionality. The result had a negligible effect on crime, but resulted in a significant decline in support for gun control in America. There was also a strong political backlash. Many pro-gun-control politicians lost elections, and the urban-rural split between the two major political parties became more pronounced. I really hope that we do something more sensible this time.

Re:100 more will die today by cayenne8 · 2012-12-17 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I really hope that we do something more sensible this time.
So, what are you going to do?
Unless you outright ban guns....or possibly legislate it so that only single shot weapons are legal, you're not going to change or do anything.
Only law abiding people follow the laws...criminals, by definition, aren't going to abide by them.
And banning guns tomorrow, totally...would not affect gun crime in the US for decades, there are just too many guns and ammo to be had out there. If you did this...again, only the law abiding would suffer at the hands of criminals which would still be fully and heavily armed.
I'm sorry, shit happens. Crazy people are out there, and will pop up from time to time, and kill lots of people.
Hell, wasn't there recently a killing spree at a grade school in German or somewhere else in Europe where the killing and damage done was with a knife?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:100 more will die today by dingDaShan · 2012-12-17 08:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

++++ This is the most sensible thing that I've heard on the situation. Let's mourn the victims, but not let this be a cause to further erode freedom.
Re:100 more will die today by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-12-17 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is or the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".
Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead. Millions of public monitoring cameras would surely reduce that number. Are you willing to sacrified the freedom to go about your daily business unwatched in order to save an order of magnitude more children? At what point does the price for a child's life become too high for you?

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:100 more will die today by ShanghaiBill · 2012-12-17 08:33 · Score: 4, Informative

YI ask because I do not know - how easy / difficult is it for an adult in the US to buy a gun / rifle / whatever that can be used to shoot people dead?
It is easy. Here is the algorithm:
1. Get money.
2. Go to store.
3. Buy gun.
4. Depending on the state, you may need to wait up to 30 days to pick up your gun and take it home.
The seller is required to do an instant background check to make sure you have no criminal record. This only takes a few minutes.
About half of American homes have at least one gun.
I own a Remington 870 pump action shotgun, and an AR-15 assault rifle. I haven't fired the shotgun in over a decade, and the ammo I have is probably too stale to work reliably. I fire the AR-15 annually, and replace all the ammo so that it is fresh. If I have to defend my family (or join in an insurrection) the AR-15 is definitely my weapon of choice because it is functionally identical to an M-16 except for the full auto mode, and I had extensive experience with M-16s during a former employment.
I do not own a handgun, and I never will. There are not safe, especially around kids (I have two), and would be less effective than a rifle in almost any defensive scenario.
Re:100 more will die today by GryMor · 2012-12-17 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Improving mental health care" and access to it.

--
Realities just a bunch of bits.
Re:100 more will die today by medcalf · 2012-12-17 08:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Crazy people? Tell it to the person in Milwaukee who, on November 21, used his carry weapon to defend himself in a hair salon. Two men knocked, were let in by a customer, then one of the men pulled a gun and aimed it at the customer, who knocked it away and then used his own gun to kill his attacker and wound the attacker's accomplice. Or tell it to the 12 year old Oklahoma girl a couple of months ago, who used the family handgun to defend herself against a home intruder whose history included kidnapping a girl.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:100 more will die today by DarkTempes · 2012-12-17 08:46 · Score: 5, Informative

I agree a lot with your post except for that leading statistic.

2009 Cause of death stats by the CDC:
Accidental discharge of firearms: 554
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms: 18,735
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms: 11,493
Total: 30782
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

That's 16% less than "over 100 a day" and nowhere near even third splits
A less misleading and sensationalist introduction would be "about 31 people died a day from gun-related homicides."

I honestly don't see guns involved in suicides as an issue as people that want to kill themselves are going to find ways to do it.
The number we obviously need to work on is the 11.5k gun homicides, especially when you compare us to other countries.
Re:100 more will die today by coldfarnorth · 2012-12-17 08:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Can you please cite some data?
I've only looked around for a minute or two, and here's what I've got:
* The US had roughly 3 gun murders per 100 000 population in one year. (Data from 2008 - 2010)
* The UK had 0.04 per 100 000 population (2011)
* Australia had 0.09 per 100 000 (2008)
The (gun) murder rate in the US is 7.5 times larger than in the UK, and more than 3 times larger than in Australia. This would tend not to support your point. Since you mentioned crime, I did not cite the Suicide and Accidental Death numbers, but they make the US look even worse.
Incidentally, the country with the highest gun homicide rate in the EU (that I could find data for on short notice) was Luxemburg - 0.6 gun murders per 100 000 population (2009). The US gun homicide rate is 5 times larger . . .

--
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
Re:100 more will die today by afaik_ianal · 2012-12-17 09:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

What an absolute load of clap trap.
Why do people get modded up as insightful for spouting the same old NRA propaganda? Analysing the statistics for violent crime, suicide and accidental deaths is a complicated area of research. Finding localised peaks in violent crime figures does not negate the massive drops in gun incidents we saw in Australia following the effective banning of firearms almost 20 years ago.
And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.
Re:100 more will die today by ShanghaiBill · 2012-12-17 09:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

What do you consider sensible?
Of the things you listed, I would definitely support improving mental health care. I have a cousin that had a head injury while he was in the military, and now has many symptoms of schizophrenia and paranoid delusions. I have gone with him to the VA about a dozen times. We never saw the same doctor twice. They will usually prescribe routine treatment, such as Haldol, which is effective against schizophrenia, but actually makes the paranoia worse. We then have to explain to the doctor that we already tried that a decade ago, and perhaps he should take a few minutes to actually read the patients medical history. The amount of waste and duplication is so immense, that I am not sure improving things would even cost more. One cheap way to improve the situation (while cutting costs) would be to empower the nurses, who usually know far more than the doctors about individual patients, to make more decisions, and then fire the dumbest doctors.
Better mental heath would not only reduce gun deaths, but would lower all crime. It has been estimated that half the people in prison have untreated mental conditions. How many of them wouldn't be there if they got treatment earlier? If we spent less on prisons and more on mental health, we would probably come out way ahead.
Re:100 more will die today by afaik_ianal · 2012-12-17 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

The catch-22 is that your relative value on human life makes you an incredibly inappropriate person for making those life-and-death decisions.
There are a million and one reasons why someone might be in your house (or why you might think someone's in your house).
I'm not suggesting being robbed isn't most likely explanation, but it's just stuff. Your stuff is not worth extrajudicial killing someone over.
Re:100 more will die today by BetterSense · 2012-12-17 12:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

How many people did not die in the Clackamas Mall shooting a couple days ago? Apparently a bystander who was legally carrying a handgun for defense confronted the shooter, but did not fire due to presence of bystanders. Handgun vs. rifle is a very frightening disparity, btw.

http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

How many people didn't die that would have? Hard to say, but I'm sure all we will hear in the news is about the shooter how the incident proves we need to ban guns.

I'll go ahead and say it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

This should be a reminder to all of us to be that friend he probably didn't have. I'd have killed myself in college if it weren't for a few online friends. Skearrit and Zenobia, that's you. It's WoW now instead of MUDs, but people are the same.

Re:I'll go ahead and say it by HornWumpus · 2012-12-17 08:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Curse you Skearrit and Zenobia. AC is the most trollish poster on /.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:05 · Score: 5, Funny

He must have run Linux because he was a genius? Bahahaha!

I run Linux because I'm a masochist.

Re:Whatever by The+MAZZTer · 2012-12-17 08:09 · Score: 4, Informative

That's funny, everything I've heard says the ONLY WAY to be completely sure your data is wiped is to physically destroy the disk.

Of course it wouldn't hurt to do a software-based wipe first, and who says he didn't?

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by Jeng · 2012-12-17 08:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

A gun in hand is quicker than a couple passes with DBAN.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Re:Now he's a hero by YodasEvilTwin · 2012-12-17 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're the only one saying that as far as I can see. Perhaps you're just afraid of saying it straight up without the false quotes....

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

The guy was a diagnosed aspie and was reputed at high school to be a computer genius.

To the general public, "Plays lots of video games" == "Computer Genius".

Re:They can still recover data by NevarMore · 2012-12-17 08:14 · Score: 4, Funny

The fingerprints on his keyboard and they way the letters are worn will show which keys he used most

CSI: NCIS New Miami York has determined that he used R S T L N E keys more than others, this has determined that he was likely an English speaker and had a real hard on for Vanna White. This attack may have been a plea for help after his failed attempt to get on Wheel of Fortune.

Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't get why you'd say this?

I mean, yeah, DBAN would nuke data... but that takes HOURS when I can drill, shoot, or microwave a drive in minutes. Even an oven to degauss would be quicker.

Shattering a hard drive immediately takes it beyond all off-the-shelf forensics providers without leaving any doubts about the firmware, disk recovery sectors, MBR backups... It also takes it beyond the capabilities of most agencies that aren't commercial. You simply *can't* plug it into a purchased capture device at that point.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to recover it with cleanroom techniques at that point... but I'm pretty sure recovery is exactly...that... theory -- when you're pulling dust, debris, and shards of glass out of it... And even if it's not -- it's a massive time difference.

Are you trying to allude to the cloud data that should exist? I think half the point of the physical destruction was to delay and wholly prevent discovering any cloud sources he may have used as long as possible.

They'll have to get his email address from friends and family now, look up the logs, check with the ISP for any traffic from that originating address... look for any traffic on a huge list of known providers from the same address ...filter that down.

Unless his ISP has incredible capture, it's going to be near impossible to find what website or forums he's visited in a timely manner... much less chat programs or other likely mediums like WoW/Ventrilo

Their best bet is probably actually checking the home router to see if it has logs or DNS cached...

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by icebike · 2012-12-17 08:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Indeed, if there were any signs to be gleaned from his computer, it doesn't matter since they'll be ignored anyway

One would hope so.

The alternative is even more government intrusion into your computers and communications.

The fact that he did destroy them suggests he knew there was stuff on them which might be of use to the police. Since he obviously intended to take his own life, none of this could be used against him personally. One has to wonder if he had fellow travelers in his journey to insanity that he thought he could protect via destruction.

I would imagine his ISP is surrendering logs at this very moment.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by sjames · 2012-12-17 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Physical destruction is the gold standard for this sort of thing.

Of course, the real question is why did he do any of this? The way he wiped his computer is fairly low on the list of things better left undone that day.

Sez you by Safety+Cap · 2012-12-17 08:21 · Score: 4, Funny

I was running late for work today and realized I forgot to do laundry over the weekend.

The only thing left to do was put my full body kevlar on over my "Venom" costume.

Fortunately, I work for a bunch of blind people.

--
Yeah, right.

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by sjames · 2012-12-17 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

And because they're not really warning signs since more often than not, nothing happens when they're present and typically nobody gives them a thought except in retrospect.

Why Physical Destruction Works by Jaborandy · 2012-12-17 08:27 · Score: 5, Informative

When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets. Here's why it works:

The surface of the platters is covered in magnetic data, but in order to read it you have to be able to pass a head over it. If you bend the platters, put a few jagged holes in them, and destroy the bearing center, there is no technology that can run a read head reliably over a data track. If the platters are bent, you can't install them in a new drive or mount new heads. You also can't flatten them to the original tolerances without destroying the magnetic surface coating.

The biggest hand-waving magic people fear is the electon microscope techinques which have been shown to dig up even erased data by looking at the edges of the latest written data to see what was there before. While this is technically possible in ideal conditions, it requires that you can move the platter under the tip of the microscope with incredible precision. Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

Pistol rounds generally dent the platters pretty seriously. Rifle rounds generally punch through leaving jagged holes. A combination of both is a fun day at the range, makes great desk art, and securely pretects your drives from ever being decoded again.

--Jaborandy

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

I wonder if it ran Linux

The end of the world will come when a introverted former postal employee + warcraft fan writes a ReiserFS IFS driver for windows and proceeds to install mcafee on first successfull boot while listening to linkin park.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

I run Linux because I can't afford a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

I run Linux because I own a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

*confused by wierd_w · 2012-12-17 08:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am often confused, and more than just a little alarmed at the polarization that stories like this cause.

On one side, there are the people that would rather live in an Aldus Huxley novel than suffer the slight against their perceptions of safety that allowing the general public access to firearms presents. (Seriously. If there are 100 shootings per day, out of 250 million persons in the USA, your chances of being so shot on any given day are 4 places to the right of the decimal point in terms of percentages-- (borrowed possibly false statistic from previous poster.) At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe. Contemplate that when you advocate stampeeding over peoples rights because kids were involved.)

Then, on the other, you have the people that feel we are already deep inside an aldus huxley novel, and have a "freedom fighter" complex. (The types who wear the tinfoil, you know whom it is of which I speak.)

Where are the people like me, who live in the middle? The people who deplore the senseless death, but who blame a faulted cultue that stigmatizes people with mental health issues, makes care for such insanely unaffordable, and tries to pretend the problem isn't serious? The ones who understand that guns are simply a tool, and the purpose they serve in the hands of the public is a preventative measure against corruption in high places, and nothing more?

The solution to deaths like these is NOT "gun control".

The solution to deaths like this is to get people the help they so desperately need, without any overtones of disparagment, or of belittling the people who need that help.

Outlawing guns does NOT help the mentally ill get the help the need, before they snap and take others with them. It simply sweeps the issue under the rug, because outlawing the tool used for the killing is simply easier. Nevermind that any sense of security the measure brings is false, and endagers more innocent people. (If not a gun, then perhaps a bomb, or poison, or any number of other methods.)

I am tired of these stories. I am tired of the shield rattling. I am tired of the "Ra Ra Rah!" And gung-ho idiocy of both sides.

In cases like these, there are *ONLY* victims. There are no bad guys, unless you care to look in the mirror. Our blind complacency to the sufferings of others is what CAUSES this shit. Everything about this story is tradgedy. Stop looking for a fucking scapegoat.

Seriously. It confuses the fuck out of my why it always must be so, that we all lose our minds over this, and dive headfirst from the frypan into the fire.

We like to pretend that we have sharp minds.

For FSM's sake, fucking use them.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:39 · Score: 5, Funny

But "Plays lots of video games" means he was a Windows user... Windows 8 must really be that bad...

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course! What better place to meet hot chicks and SCORE!!!!

Stop watching Fox by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-12-17 08:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Seriously kid, stop watching fox, your bain is rotting away. Australia and Europe both got lower crime rates.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by jythie · 2012-12-17 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.

Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by DrgnDancer · 2012-12-17 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

The guy killed 28 people, including 20 small kids, in a international media circus that included the personal attention of the POTUS. Every single piece of that hard drive is in an FBI clean lab with specialists trying every trick they know, and NSA consultants coming in just to see if they help. If there's anything the FBI and NSA specialists can't figure out, any university in the country will be happy to lend whatever professor is most appropriate out, and the national intelligences services of any county in western world and a good chunk of the developing world will be available for consult should it be required.

Trust me, for something like this, resources are not going to be an issue.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.

Re:Whatever by icebike · 2012-12-17 08:42 · Score: 4, Informative

The fact that he tried to physically destroy things means he isn't nearly as smart as they want us to believe. They'll get quite a bit of it back. And more than likely will be able to get a pretty good profile of him by sequestering logs from various services, be it ISP, Xbox Live, etc.

Ah, no, they will get nothing back.

There is a huge myth around data recovery from physically damaged hard disk drives that all stems from an article written by Peter Gutmann as a research paper.
In the real world (Even the NSA's real world) this can not be done.

They have a much better chance of getting something back from the nvram in a cell phone uses as a clay pigeon.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane? by JeanCroix · 2012-12-17 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Four isn't exactly an arsenal. And she was into recreational shooting, they weren't just self defense. But she is indeed the answer in that she obviously did not secure her guns well enough from her disturbed son.

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by MaWeiTao · 2012-12-17 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure he was fully aware that the authorities and the media would try to understand him. I'd guess his intent was to do something horrible, hitting the most vulnerable part of society in order to inflict maximum pain. That he could leave everyone with questions to which they'd never have answers was the final aspect of his plan.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-12-17 08:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Eh, even frat bros have xboxes now. I'm pretty sure that you have to be able to type in 'HTML Machine Language' in order to be a computer genius these days... Taking the side panel off your case and just running it that way is also useful, like growing a beard if you want to be taken seriously in the humanities.

Re:Yeah well by Obfuscant · 2012-12-17 08:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Australia banned automatic rifles after several mass shootings and since then, they have had none.

TSA banned liquids and gels in more than small quantities, and since then, there have been no incidents of liquid-based explosions on US aircraft.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane? by deroby · 2012-12-17 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Disclaimer : this is just my personal opinion.

Maybe you look at this the wrong way, I guess the mother didn't look at guns as self-defence but rather as a hobby. Why does Jay Leno need 100 cars ?

Friend of mine has 5 fire-arms (guns & rifles) and makes his own ammo. If he ever goes mental I'm sure it will make the world-news too... But as far as I can tell he's a sane, laid-back kind of guy with a hobby he practices perfectly within the law. Who am I to deprive him of that ?

And where to draw the line ? Crossbows ? Bows ? Slingshots ? Knives ?
IMHO, most people around here (Belgium, strict laws) play with guns for a hobby, few have it for self-defence. AFAIK.

--
If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.

Re:Whatever by blueg3 · 2012-12-17 09:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Gutmann's paper is actually the basis for the myth that you can recover data from a logically-wiped drive: that is, one that's been entirely overwritten with other data (e.g. zeroes).

That, too, cannot be done.

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-12-17 09:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

But when questioned further, they'll all remember tons of warning signs that they ignored, because nobody gives a shit until somebody starts killing.

The problem with 'warning signs' is that(without a much larger and better constructed study population, which you would be unlikely to get) is selection bias: It is, indeed, very unlikely that somebody who goes in and shoots up the place acted 100% normally in the time leading up to doing so. However, without doing an equally-invasive-and-thorough investigation of a fairly large number of demographically similar non-shooters, how do you separate signal from noise?

Practically any instance of assholery, alienation, or general dark muttering looks like a 'warning sign' once you've gone and emptied a few magazines into cowering elementary school children; but that is diagnostically useless unless you have reason to suspect that a given behavior doesn't show up(or shows up orders of magnitude less frequently) in non spree shooters.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane? by chad.koehler · 2012-12-17 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

This post went from protecting rights to advocating for thought crime. A+ would read again.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane? by Runaway1956 · 2012-12-17 09:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Three weapons is not an "arsenal". When people use that term, I expect to find dozens of weapons, not ten or less. Owning 3 or more shotguns means that you use shotguns to hunt different kind of game - maybe ducks, upland fowl, and squirrels, maybe a twelve guage for slugs to hunt deer.

That small .223 is great for varmints such as groundhog - generally the same person will own one or more larger deer rifles, like a 30-30 or a 30-06.

If our gun enthusiast also goes to target ranges, he may own yet another weapon that has been customized for extreme accuracy. .270, .243, or .223 are all great target rounds.

Arsenal. I've only seen three specific weapons mentioned, and some references to an "assault rifle". That "assault rifle" merits some concern, but it's not clear yet what they are referring to. Like as not, some fool has characterized a deer rifle as an "assault weapon", but he may well have been carrying an SKS or something.

As for "why so much ammo" - 100 rounds is no big deal anywhere. Ammo comes in boxes of 20, and it's not uncommon to purchase 2 to 10 boxes at a time. Anyone serious about marksmanship might buy 100 boxes at a time. It only takes several minutes to use up a box, if you're carefully aiming. If you're just having fun, it only takes a minute.

People who ask these questions and make these assumptions are obviously not outdoorsmen.

--
"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

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane? by JeanCroix · 2012-12-17 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

The AR-15 is a very common rifle for recreational and competition shooting. "Nut" comment aside, she was ultimately responsible: 1) Not properly securing them, 2) Not just getting rid of them while having an unstable individual living in her house.

Re:Why physically damage the drive? by nitehawk214 · 2012-12-17 09:21 · Score: 4, Funny

The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.

Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...

FP/TP Ratio? So people with a high First Post to Third Post ratio are more likely to be killers? I knew it....

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane? by jekewa · 2012-12-17 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

The responsibility lies with the nutbag who shot up the school and then committed suicide. It might be nice to try to find some reason or trigger for it, but really it was the actions of one individual performing a heinous act. He took advantage of the situation and executed his twisted plan, or reacted completely insanely, or something in between. While in a situation where he may not have had such easy access to such weapons (for whatever reason) it may not have happened the way it did, but there's no way of knowing for sure that he wouldn't have done something similar another way.

Whatever you think of her gun selection, in firepower or quantity, it seems she gained them legally and behaved with them responsibly. It can surely be argued that no matter how stringent any gun control law, short of completely banning gun ownership, she could have followed all of those more strict laws and still had weapons that her son would then acquire illegally and use incorrectly.

There's no evidence she didn't properly secure her firearms and that he simply defeated said security. Locking something in a gun safe isn't something that would stop a motivated and capable 20-year old. He could surely have known where she kept any locker or trigger-lock keys, and reached them. Short of that any number of tools could have been used to overcome many home gun lockers, especially those meant to keep children safe and not truly secure the weapons.

Some blurb I saw somewhere said that Connecticut only requires locking up firearms when there are minors living in the home, and since he was 20 he was not a minor. Yes, a responsible gun owner should have locked up the weapons regardless, but again, a 20-year old familiar enough with the weapons to do what he did would have surely been able to open said locks.

Additionally, while the actions show in hindsight that he was plenty unstable (tore up first-graders...'nuff said), there's not been convincing evidence presented (that I've seen or read) that indicates he was unstable to the point that one might think he would do what he did. Too many interviews point out "what a quiet person" or "nice fella" or whatever. I'm sure his mother thought she understood whatever was going through his head, as most parents will believe with their kids, even when they're wrong. We'd all like to believe that we'd be able to see the breakdown coming, and even if there was any indication he was about to snap, perhaps she didn't envision he'd snap like this, or on that day.

These are the basic facts. She had legally obtained weapons. He obtained them from her (and killed her with them). He is responsible for the actions that took the lives of those children and their protectors.

--
End the FUD

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case by Seumas · 2012-12-17 09:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

It was motivated by availability of guns.
No, wait -- because of mental illness issues in America.
No, wait -- because of video games.
Wait, wait, -- I mean, because of goths.
Wait, no, I mean it was because of music.
What am I saying? I meant to say it was because of movies and television.
Oh, geeze, I forgot -- it's because "they took god out of schools".
Oh, whoops. No, it's because not enough people at the school were armed.
Uh oh, no it's because of the evil internet.
No, no, no -- it's because of bad parenting.
Oh, boy, it's actually because he was a loner and didn't fit in.
No, wait a minute -- it's clearly because of bullies.

Or maybe everyone on the planet should shut the fuck up, grow up, and acknowledge that fucked up shit happens that is beyond our control and you can't blame freak occurrences into never happening and therefore somehow assuring eternal safety. People will lose their shit. Nature will throw something totally fucked at you. Accidents will happen. Mistakes will be made. Instead of realizing fucked up shit happens, we aid those trying to manipulate these freak events to push their personal agendas by somehow trying to reverse-engineer a stream of chaos -- which butterfly's flapping wings in the world lead to the hurricane?

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by jedidiah · 2012-12-17 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

You should read the DSM-IV sometime.

Pretty much anyone can be "diagnosed" with something. It's not just Aspergers.

This is one good reason to never trust anyone that calls themselves a mental health professional. You never know when the Soviet or McCarthy era abuses will begin again.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Guns And Abortion by assertation · 2012-12-17 10:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Right wingers believe that new laws will prevent people from getting abortions. Why don't they believe that new laws will prevent people from shooting guns at people?

Israel Civil Force by Bodhammer · 2012-12-17 10:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

I just read this entire thread and find it fascinating. There are some well thought out arguments on both sides. One thing I have not seen mentioned is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_(Israel) . This is a volunteer force, administered by the police. One of the areas they protect is schools and kindergartens. The volunteers are screened, get training, and provide a first line of defense until the troops show up. They have over 50,000 in the force out of a population of 7.7 million. If we had the same percentage in the USA we would have over 20 million people helping with security and crime.
I'm interested in what this community thinks. Would/Could this work in the USA? Would you volunteer for 12 hours/month?

--
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by jfengel · 2012-12-17 10:48 · Score: 5, Informative

And that's why Asperger's was eliminated in the DSM-V.

The new DSM is problematic, just as the last one was. Yes, it's certainly possible to abuse it. But the psychiatrists really are trying to help people, and they're just beginning to explore a difficult new field.

The range of human behavior is far, far more variable and intricate than any protein or subatomic particle. A century ago the science was nonexistent, then barbaric, then more harmful than helpful. Now occasionally it does more good than harm. If you don't like your shrink, get a new one. But rejecting the whole profession is just... well, paranoid.

The DSM was not concocted as part of a plot to lock people up. Its goal is to help. It may not, and that's why there's a DSM-6 already in the works. That's how science works.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case by circletimessquare · 2012-12-17 11:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

actually, it's pretty much the quintessential american tragedy

we gut mental healthcare safety nets, and healthcare in general we don't care about

we flood society with guns

and here we have a deranged person with a gun. it's called cause and effect. of course lanza can happen anywhere in the world, but because of american society, adam lanza becomes more likely here

adam lanza as a phenomenon says a lot of about the USA's culture and priorities in regards to healthcare and guns, and less about humanity in general

and we as americans can do something about it, by emphasizing healthcare as the solution to our problems, and deemphasizing guns as the solution to our problems, and we can make adam lanzas less likely to happen

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case by canadian_right · 2012-12-17 12:41 · Score: 5, Informative

A columnist at the CBC has a good article on how many Canadians feel about the USA's attitude towards guns and these horrible tragedies.

--
Anarchists never rule

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS by Jason+Levine · 2012-12-17 13:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Aspergers has ZERO to do with the killer's rampage. I have a son with Asperger's (yes, diagnosed by a doctor and, no, it wasn't an easy process to figure out what was going on with him) and I can tell you that the nature of Asperger's is completely counter to something like this.

First of all, people think Asperger's means a lack of empathy. It doesn't, though. It's a lack of an ability to pick up on social cues. My son can't tell if his endless story about the video game he's playing is boring you or if you are riveted. Communication is 20% words and 80% non-verbal. Aspies have trouble deciphering the latter 80%. Imagine trying to read Slashdot posts/comments with only 1 out of every 5 letters in place. C____ __u ____y __ _n_ __ ___m? O_ _____d ___ __t___a_ __o_ ___ __n____a___n? (i.e. Could you reply to any of them? Or would you withdraw from the conversation?) Aspies might withdraw simply because they don't understand how to respond/interact, but they *WANT* to participate.

In addition, Aspies tend to be over-sensitive to the emotions of others once they are told about them. If you tell an Aspie they they offended you with somthing they did, the Aspie will likely feel awful. They might not know how to "make it better", and might withdraw more for fear of making more mistakes, but don't mistake withdrawal for lack of empathy.

Finally, I've found that Aspies (like my son) tend to be sticklers for the rules. They find comfort in rules and get upset when people violate them. So an Aspie isn't likely to plan something that completely "violates the rules" to the degree that a mass shooting does. (They might not get subtle social cues, but they understand that hurting people is wrong.)

Anyone who tries to link mass shootings (including this one) to Asperger's/Autism is just displaying a vast lack of understanding of what Asperger's/Autism is.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane? by ahabswhale · 2012-12-17 16:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are wrong on several counts:

1) This kid had mental issues since birth. He had Aspergers and difficulty dealing with others and was a problem kid his whole life.

2) The mother bought these guns to teach her kid how to shoot so he could learn about responsibility. Talk about the stupidest fucking thing you can think of to teach a mentally ill kid responsibility...

3) It's the mother's responsibility to make sure her mentally ill child does not have access to deadly weapons. You can't blame a nut for their actions when everyone knows he's got major problems. If she felt the need to have guns, she should have properly secured them such that he could not get access to them. (Maybe that should be a law?)

In short, his mom was completely irresponsible. If she weren't dead, I'd say she should be prosecuted (at least for being a complete fucking moron).

--
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case by danlip · 2012-12-17 17:19 · Score: 4, Informative

I am still totally perplexed as to why rational thinking people could consider a law giving the right to bear arms, written in the days where arms meant sabres, brown bess muskets and the occasional long rifle (half a century before the invention of the Minié ball or rotating bolt) entitles them to buy AR-15 rifles and automatic handguns.

It's clear the intent of the founding fathers was to provide the people with the ability to overthrow the government. If you only allow people to have sabres and muskets in this age that clearly isn't following the intent. Automatic weapons are necessary to even have a chance.

However, I think we should definitely consider whether that is still necessary. Our democracy has had a long history of success and we have resolved many tough issues peacefully. We should repeal the second amendment. That doesn't mean that all guns would be illegal, but it would mean the government has the power to regulate them.

Slashdot Mirror

Adam Lanza Destroyed His Computer Before Rampage

80 of 1,719 comments (clear)