Leave the issue of formatting aside, because it isn't effective. Wiping is the method I was referring to, and it does matter what you overwrite the old data with, and how many times. If, for example, you overwrite your entire disk once, with a pattern of all 1's, it is possible (though very expensive) to manually reconstruct the previous data. A quick Google search found this reference, as an example:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_ del.html
In conventional terms, when a one is written to disk the media records a one, and when a zero is written the media records a zero. However the actual effect is closer to obtaining a 0.95 when a zero is overwritten with a one, and a 1.05 when a one is overwritten with a one. Normal disk circuitry is set up so that both these values are read as ones, but using specialised circuitry it is possible to work out what previous "layers" contained. The recovery of at least one or two layers of overwritten data isn't too hard to perform by reading the signal from the analog head electronics with a high-quality digital sampling oscilloscope, downloading the sampled waveform to a PC, and analysing it in software to recover the previously recorded signal.
Granted, this is about ten years old. I believe I saw another reply in this thread stating that this was an issue only with older disks, and it isn't possible with newer drives. I don't have any specific knowledge regarding that claim, so I suppose it's possible.
In short, the point I was trying to make was that by overwriting all bits on a drive, you aren't necessarily removing all information that used to be there. Of course, overwriting more than once is overkill for most of us. If you are worried about somebody spending millions of dollars just to recover the data on one of your hard disks, you have bigger problems to concern yourself with:)
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
Fine. But there's a big difference between selling copies of CDs (or games) in your collection, and selling the only original copy. I've heard rumors for a while that RIAA, MPAA, and other groups were planning on going after the used music/movie/game industry. Since when are you required to own a product for life once you buy it? As long as you transfer all copies/licenses to a new party, you should be able to give or sell any media you have purchased to someone else. And there is no reason why record companies, game publishers, or movie studios deserve another cut of that purchase price (I've also heard rumors that record companies are trying to squeeze some percentages out of used music sales). This is getting ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the government just doesn't have the resources to investigate every single incident of computer trespassing. It would be nice if they could, but until then I can understand why an intrusion of an ISP mail server would not be very high on their priority list. As many incidents as there are like this that occur every day, it simply isn't possible to follow up on every one. Although, if what you say is true, it seems like you did most of the work for them. Hopefully they would at least file the information away for a rainy day, but my guess is they they didn't.
However, if this incident caused your opinion of the FBI and DHS to sink that much, I think you may have been overly generous with your opinion of the two agencies to begin with:)
No, their reasons were definitely not for the benefit of the user. But the article didn't claim that they were. It was trying to show what lengths spyware companies will go to in order to generate advertising revenue. Unfortunately, spyware companies are becoming very sophisticated in the methods they are using to install, hide, and spread their software, which isn't surprising considering some of the connections they have... This just goes to show that there is no loyalty among thieves. Now they are going to the trouble to implement anti-spyware features within their spyware for the sole purpose of eliminating the competition.
Like it or not, historically religion has been the basis for much of our public policy, such as our laws and Constitution. Like I said in my previous posts, anyone who takes an ideal to an extreme is irrational. However, anyone who makes generalized judgements about anyone who believes in a ideal, based on the actions of a few irrational zealots of that ideal, is also irrational. QED.
In some games it works, and in some it doesn't. As an example of when it doesn't, when I rent Tiger Woods to play on the 360, and I want to play a few rounds multiplayer with a friend, it's annoying when there are only a few courses that you can access. Especially when you really only intend to play it in multiplayer mode, which never unlocks any new content.
I'll certainly admit that when one takes religion too far, it causes more problems than it solves and tends to shy away from rationality. But this is true of any ideal (politics, for example), and not just of religion. I don't think it is quite fair to categorize all religious points of view as uninformed and completely irrelevant.
I tend to be fairly conservative on social issues such as this, but it seems to me that there can be well-defined limits of stem cell research. There is a big difference between cloning cells or groups of cells to potentially fight disease and making a replica of an entire human. Shouldn't the potential benefits of stem cell research outweigh the fear of someone going "too far" with cloning? Especially considering the large gap between cloning cells and cloning an entire human?
I think donating organs after your death is a very morbid thought, but when you consider the potential benefits of doing so, you can't reasonably disagree with it. (Granted, it isn't the same thing, but I think the analogy still applies somewhat.) When I think of horrible diseases such as Alzheimer's, I can't really make a valid personal argument not to allow stem cell research.
I should qualify this by saying that I certainly understand the arguments of both sides, however.
Slashdot Mirror
It does matter how many times. It also matters what methods are used. There is a big difference between formatting and wiping.
I wouldn't mind seeing a source on that statistic. Because I'd be pretty comfortable betting my life savings that it's not true.
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
Fine. But there's a big difference between selling copies of CDs (or games) in your collection, and selling the only original copy. I've heard rumors for a while that RIAA, MPAA, and other groups were planning on going after the used music/movie/game industry. Since when are you required to own a product for life once you buy it? As long as you transfer all copies/licenses to a new party, you should be able to give or sell any media you have purchased to someone else. And there is no reason why record companies, game publishers, or movie studios deserve another cut of that purchase price (I've also heard rumors that record companies are trying to squeeze some percentages out of used music sales). This is getting ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the government just doesn't have the resources to investigate every single incident of computer trespassing. It would be nice if they could, but until then I can understand why an intrusion of an ISP mail server would not be very high on their priority list. As many incidents as there are like this that occur every day, it simply isn't possible to follow up on every one. Although, if what you say is true, it seems like you did most of the work for them. Hopefully they would at least file the information away for a rainy day, but my guess is they they didn't.
However, if this incident caused your opinion of the FBI and DHS to sink that much, I think you may have been overly generous with your opinion of the two agencies to begin with :)
No, their reasons were definitely not for the benefit of the user. But the article didn't claim that they were. It was trying to show what lengths spyware companies will go to in order to generate advertising revenue. Unfortunately, spyware companies are becoming very sophisticated in the methods they are using to install, hide, and spread their software, which isn't surprising considering some of the connections they have... This just goes to show that there is no loyalty among thieves. Now they are going to the trouble to implement anti-spyware features within their spyware for the sole purpose of eliminating the competition.
Like it or not, historically religion has been the basis for much of our public policy, such as our laws and Constitution. Like I said in my previous posts, anyone who takes an ideal to an extreme is irrational. However, anyone who makes generalized judgements about anyone who believes in a ideal, based on the actions of a few irrational zealots of that ideal, is also irrational. QED.
Guess I'd better move my money from titanium futures to gold and silver.
In some games it works, and in some it doesn't. As an example of when it doesn't, when I rent Tiger Woods to play on the 360, and I want to play a few rounds multiplayer with a friend, it's annoying when there are only a few courses that you can access. Especially when you really only intend to play it in multiplayer mode, which never unlocks any new content.
I'll certainly admit that when one takes religion too far, it causes more problems than it solves and tends to shy away from rationality. But this is true of any ideal (politics, for example), and not just of religion. I don't think it is quite fair to categorize all religious points of view as uninformed and completely irrelevant.
I tend to be fairly conservative on social issues such as this, but it seems to me that there can be well-defined limits of stem cell research. There is a big difference between cloning cells or groups of cells to potentially fight disease and making a replica of an entire human. Shouldn't the potential benefits of stem cell research outweigh the fear of someone going "too far" with cloning? Especially considering the large gap between cloning cells and cloning an entire human? I think donating organs after your death is a very morbid thought, but when you consider the potential benefits of doing so, you can't reasonably disagree with it. (Granted, it isn't the same thing, but I think the analogy still applies somewhat.) When I think of horrible diseases such as Alzheimer's, I can't really make a valid personal argument not to allow stem cell research. I should qualify this by saying that I certainly understand the arguments of both sides, however.