Somebody needs to question that standard. There's no credible evidence that data can be recovered after writing a single pass of random data.
Even if there was any evidence (and let's be clear, there isn't...), if anybody wants to spend that much money trying to recover data from machines bought randomly on eBay they should be encouraged to do so. The sooner they go bankrupt, the better.
Now can you address the actual point, which was: "It's not difficult to wipe hard drives in a time frame which is consistent with upgrading a room full of PCs."
Formatting works perfectly well for data destruction.
(cue line of geeks with theories about why it isn't despite the fact that they can't come up with a single example of data recovery after formatting...)
How hard can it be for a government to make a CD stick which you insert in a PC which boots up and wipes the hard drive?
They could insert one in every PC before they remove it from the person's desk. It would take about ten minutes. If they're doing a roomful of PCs (as they mostly do) then by the time you got around to putting the CD in the last machine, the first one would be finished.
If you read TFA you'll see there's no contract. The word "contractor" implies it but really they were just handed to a guy who crossed his heart and promised to do it before putting them on eBay.
OTOH, you're right that the NHS shouldn't be fined. The person who handed over the computers (presumably to a friend of his) needs jailing.
They shouldn't be fining themselves, they should be jailing the person responsible for handing them to the "unnamed contractor" (who was probably a friend).
Bzzt! You lose. For your "theory", lets say the government buys a $1000 widget. It didn't produce that widget, it spent the money to buy that widget. It didn't spend $1000 for that widget, it spent $1200 because the government has its overhead.
Bzzt! You lose. The government pays at least 400% markup on anything it buys.
I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service, which can be activated by a customer (by two factors: permission and network access), and that without action on the part of the customer, said backdoor is closed.
"Permission" isn't much of a safeguard against criminals. They tend to do stuff without it.
(Isn't that the very definition of "criminal", i.e. doing stuff they don't have permission to do?)
This. They can end up going up to the point that only businesses can afford them.
On the plus side, we might be able to move away from the awful glossy-widesceen-with-awful-keyboard models that the public have been forcing on us for the last few years.
The PC is doomed, blah blah blah. All the grandma's are buying tablets. Anyone who does any real work are buying PC's or already have what they need. Nothing to see here.
Yep. Most computer users turned out to be media consumers who a) don't need the hassle of maintaining a PC, and b) like the size/shape of tablets.
The sky won't fall. This "fatal" decline will level off soon when everybody finally figures out which camp they're in.
You minimize dynamic allocations by staying away from generic data structures--e.g. for a linked list, you embed the sibling pointers in the object itself, rather than allocating a separate container node...
No, you don't. If you've got any brains you start using C++.
from quick glance, multiple transfers and communications channels("streams" in the drafts lingo) can be put through the single connection, cutting tcp connection negotiations.
HTTP 1.1 can already do multiple transfers, browsers are already doing "streams". I doubt the gains to be made from doing that in binary are going to be noticeable.
Slashdot Mirror
... for sensitive data, more passes is standard.
Somebody needs to question that standard. There's no credible evidence that data can be recovered after writing a single pass of random data.
Even if there was any evidence (and let's be clear, there isn't...), if anybody wants to spend that much money trying to recover data from machines bought randomly on eBay they should be encouraged to do so. The sooner they go bankrupt, the better.
Sigh.
OK, let's agree it more than 10 minutes.
Now can you address the actual point, which was: "It's not difficult to wipe hard drives in a time frame which is consistent with upgrading a room full of PCs."
Ok, let's agree it more than 10 minutes. Now can you address the actual point...?
(I should have known better than to put an actual number on slashdot...)
... mostly depending on the exact terms of the contract.
You know how I know you didn't read the article?
Formatting works perfectly well for data destruction.
(cue line of geeks with theories about why it isn't despite the fact that they can't come up with a single example of data recovery after formatting...)
How hard can it be for a government to make a CD stick which you insert in a PC which boots up and wipes the hard drive?
They could insert one in every PC before they remove it from the person's desk. It would take about ten minutes. If they're doing a roomful of PCs (as they mostly do) then by the time you got around to putting the CD in the last machine, the first one would be finished.
Because there was no actual "contract" requiring him to destroy them.
That's the real problem in this case - no contract. It's all all in TFA (if you can be bothered with such trivia).
If you read TFA you'll see there's no contract. The word "contractor" implies it but really they were just handed to a guy who crossed his heart and promised to do it before putting them on eBay.
OTOH, you're right that the NHS shouldn't be fined. The person who handed over the computers (presumably to a friend of his) needs jailing.
They shouldn't be fining themselves, they should be jailing the person responsible for handing them to the "unnamed contractor" (who was probably a friend).
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/looselose.html
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/loose_lose.htm
http://www.wikihow.com/Know-the-Difference-Between-Lose-and-Loose
Bzzt! You lose. For your "theory", lets say the government buys a $1000 widget. It didn't produce that widget, it spent the money to buy that widget. It didn't spend $1000 for that widget, it spent $1200 because the government has its overhead.
Bzzt! You lose. The government pays at least 400% markup on anything it buys.
Oh, wait... the SHA1 of "badg3r5" is actually 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50.
(mushroom, mushroom)
I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service, which can be activated by a customer (by two factors: permission and network access), and that without action on the part of the customer, said backdoor is closed.
"Permission" isn't much of a safeguard against criminals. They tend to do stuff without it.
(Isn't that the very definition of "criminal", i.e. doing stuff they don't have permission to do?)
Let's face it, it's far more likely to be "HP1234" than anything as complex as l33t-speak.
This. They can end up going up to the point that only businesses can afford them.
On the plus side, we might be able to move away from the awful glossy-widesceen-with-awful-keyboard models that the public have been forcing on us for the last few years.
The PC is doomed, blah blah blah. All the grandma's are buying tablets. Anyone who does any real work are buying PC's or already have what they need. Nothing to see here.
Yep. Most computer users turned out to be media consumers who a) don't need the hassle of maintaining a PC, and b) like the size/shape of tablets.
The sky won't fall. This "fatal" decline will level off soon when everybody finally figures out which camp they're in.
You minimize dynamic allocations by staying away from generic data structures--e.g. for a linked list, you embed the sibling pointers in the object itself, rather than allocating a separate container node...
No, you don't. If you've got any brains you start using C++.
I can imagine them slamming on the breaks.
If they were mixing a dance track while driving, they're at fault.
from quick glance, multiple transfers and communications channels("streams" in the drafts lingo) can be put through the single connection, cutting tcp connection negotiations.
HTTP 1.1 can already do multiple transfers, browsers are already doing "streams". I doubt the gains to be made from doing that in binary are going to be noticeable.
It was much less bloated before Javascript and CSS started throwing up in every corner of every webpage everywhere.
That's HTML, not HTTP.
HTTP is the world's most popular protocol and it's bloated and slow to parse.
Do you even know what HTTP is?
Maybe you're thinking of HTML or something.
Ditto.
The HTTP header is miniscule compared to the HTML/images on the web page. Making it binary is a Stupid Fucking Idea.
I figure the reason this never happened is because the people in black SUVs went around visiting anybody who tried to make encryption the default.
The problem with encrypted email is that you can only send it to people who agree that security is important.
That's a problem with the email software, not the people.
A key exchange could easily be done in the background during the first few emails you send to somebody. After that you're golden.
Trouble is, almost everybody uses online email now, and I doubt Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc. will ever provide any security.
This is the reason why electronic smell-e-mail will never take off.
Imagine your inbox every morning...