If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"kony" wrote:
"Timothy Daniels" wrote: "kony" wrote about the Department of Defense: That they have a procedure for destruction of drives is no evidence that they (or anyone else) can recover data from properly wiped drives. Like anything else, this is your tax money at work. [..........] Bottom line- you have zero evidence that it's possible. [..........] There is no reason to believe the data can be recovered. Organizations secure against what they know is possible or conceivable. If that is considered a waste of resources by you, security for you *is* a waste of resources. So you're an adovcate of tin-foil hats too I suppose. It's "conceivable" that if someone wanted your data THAT badly, they'd simply kill you on the way to the destruction facility, so among your suggestions (and a tin-foil hat), don't forget to mention armed guards, armored car, etc. Armed guards and armored cars and armed escorts to secret disposal sites *are* part of standard daily destruction precautions in certain areas of the defense industry and federal agencies. That's why your disbelief is so pathetic. *Your* data, on the otherhand, wouldn't deserve such protection. *TimDaniels* |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Basically, you're saying that because Nixon's analog
recording gaps haven't been recovered is reason to believe that physical destruction of digital recording media is a waste. Tell it to the DoD and other agencies with the resources and experience to think otherwise. *TimDaniels* "w_tom" wrote and wrote and wrote: The loss of one digital bit is a major loss of the entire data packet. Loss of a number of bits cannot be recovered using error correction techniques. But an audio recording routinely has lost 'data bits'. Its called noise. Even with all that lost data (noise), the analog recording is still quite easily understood. Analog data stored magnetically on Nixon's tapes still cannot be restored. Then digital data - without all the redundancy found in analog stored data - is even harder to recover. Tim - you should know this. Analog recordings are so much easier to recover for so many reasons - including so much of the data is redundant. And still Nixon's (alleged) single erasures of that tape have not been recovered. Why do you think digital data can be recovered easier - and with less cost - and with less advanced equipment? Meanwhile you have also assumed one knows exactly which disk to try to recover data from - to spend those $millions. Above alone makes it all but impossible to recover the data. Then we make it even more difficult to recover that digital data. We overwrite that data multiple times. Timothy Daniels wrote: Why should analog signals be easier to separate from other analog signals and noise than digital signals are? Digital pulses are easier to selectively filter for a given pulse strength and pulse phase. They can be identified even on an oscilloscope. Pulse "slop" into inter-track regions can also be quite different from background noise to make their extraction easier. Suffice it to say that the DOD does not depend on overwrites to assure destruction of classified information. It requires physical destruction at an official destruction station for that because it is forced to assume, given its own capabilities, that overwrites are not guarantees of non-recoverability. Go argue with them about their precautions being merely due to paranoia. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"w_tom" wrote;
Tim - you should know this. Analog recordings are so much easier to recover for so many reasons - including so much of the data is redundant. Tell it to NASA, which uses digital signals to communicate with its space probes. Tell NASA "Guys, you're so stupid. You should be using analog signals which are redundant and retain their information despite noise so much better than digital signals." They're waiting to hear from you - right now. *TimDaniels*. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:25:01 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
wrote: So you're an adovcate of tin-foil hats too I suppose. It's "conceivable" that if someone wanted your data THAT badly, they'd simply kill you on the way to the destruction facility, so among your suggestions (and a tin-foil hat), don't forget to mention armed guards, armored car, etc. Armed guards and armored cars and armed escorts to secret disposal sites *are* part of standard daily destruction precautions in certain areas of the defense industry and federal agencies. That's why your disbelief is so pathetic. No it's why your paranoia is so complete, because you are ignorant of basic facts and so you merely try to mimmic others. *Your* data, on the otherhand, wouldn't deserve such protection. Pretending you know something based on some illusion about an idealistic future where *anything is possible*, is just a silly kid's game. In the real world, the data cannot be recovered and none of your ideals about "security" change this basic fact. I'm content to leave you jumping through hoops to go overboard when you cant' understand this. Until you find even ONE single example of the data being recovered from the DOD spec'd and trialed wipes you cannot conclude in any rational way that physical destruction of the platters themselves is necessary. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:31:51 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
wrote: Basically, you're saying that because Nixon's analog recording gaps haven't been recovered is reason to believe that physical destruction of digital recording media is a waste. Tell it to the DoD and other agencies with the resources and experience to think otherwise. Actually they already clearly made their specs for this very purpose, you apparently don't even understand the most very basic principles of specs at all. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:43:05 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
wrote: "w_tom" wrote; Tim - you should know this. Analog recordings are so much easier to recover for so many reasons - including so much of the data is redundant. Tell it to NASA, which uses digital signals to communicate with its space probes. Tell NASA "Guys, you're so stupid. You should be using analog signals which are redundant and retain their information despite noise so much better than digital signals." They're waiting to hear from you - right now. WTH does that have to do with magnetic storage recovery efforts? Nothing. If NASA's comm was interrupted they'd simply resend. It's not a one-shot event like a singular file storage. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Apparently, Tim, you have not worked with PCM nor with
Tempest. Your specualtions are not tempered with experience. More than sufficient security is obtained from a single disk overwrite. Multiple overwrites would make that data, for all practical purposes, unrecoverable. As Kony notes, if they want it that bad as to spend $millions trying to recover the data, then they are going to kill you if necessary to steal it. Murder and theft would be easier and cheaper than trying to recover overwritten disk data. Timothy Daniels wrote: "w_tom" wrote; Tim - you should know this. Analog recordings are so much easier to recover for so many reasons - including so much of the data is redundant. Tell it to NASA, which uses digital signals to communicate with its space probes. Tell NASA "Guys, you're so stupid. You should be using analog signals which are redundant and retain their information despite noise so much better than digital signals." They're waiting to hear from you - right now. *TimDaniels*. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Timothy Daniels wrote:
"w_tom" wrote; Tim - you should know this. Analog recordings are so much easier to recover for so many reasons - including so much of the data is redundant. Tell it to NASA, which uses digital signals to communicate with its space probes. Tell NASA "Guys, you're so stupid. You should be using analog signals which are redundant and retain their information despite noise so much better than digital signals." They're waiting to hear from you - right now. NASA, and the DOD use digital signals for many reasons, none of which have *anything* to do with data recovery from an erased recording medium! Read an elementary treatise on DSP, to find out about some of these reasons. Many more security violations are caused by humans than by any mechanical or electronic deficiencies. Maybe tin hats are in order! ;-) -- Virg Wall |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Asus P4C800 and support hard drives ?? | Roger Beniot | Asus Motherboards | 3 | September 19th 05 07:09 PM |
Win XP doesn't like a second hard drive! | N9WOS | General | 9 | January 6th 05 01:10 AM |
Removable Drive Bays | Rod Speed | Storage (alternative) | 35 | January 3rd 04 08:31 PM |
Hitachi 7K250 any good? | Jerry | Storage (alternative) | 20 | December 19th 03 12:47 AM |