Mystery of Guardian mobos and graphics cards which 'held Snowden files' The Guardian’s picture of the computers it claims to have smashed in order to placate the British government over the Snowden affair has been called into question over both what it shows - and what it doesn’t. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger yesterday revealed that GCHQ operatives last month paid the paper a visit in order to …
"If the Guardian still has a copy on UK soil, they can then have them up for lying about the destruction..."
The Guardian folk would be in the clear if they don't have copies in the UK on the day they are asked.
They could have a bit of fun by phoning the men from the ministry to tell them every time they have had more copies in the UK for a week or so.
So, it would be terrible if someone /outside the UK/ was to email a copy of the encrypted files to them. And cc-ed some random email addresses at the same time...
"Hi, GCHQ? Yes, we've got some copies of that file again. Oh, and would you like to go trash the mail servers at bbc.co.uk. thetimes.co.uk and bobsgerbilemporium.co.uk? I'm sure that will fix the problems..."
This post has been deleted by its author
"It's not a crime, they are not the police.
GCHQ personnel do not do site visits. They send Special Branch to do that kind of dogsbody work.
Hence, actually, yes it was the police."
<citation required>
The affected organisation said it was GCHQ, not police. We can only comment on it based on that.
The picture might raise some questions, but honestly, the explanation is utterly obvious.
You're assuming the people from GCHQ are in some way competent. The fact that they're turning up in a physical place to destroy physical things when they're dealing with digital files shows how completely wrong that assumption is.
What you have here is people turning up with the concept of "find document, shred document, job done". They don't know what these things in the picture are. Is the graphics card a hard disk? Probably! Let's break it. What's this thing? Break it. Right, the files have been destroyed, job done!
"What's this thing? Break it. Right, the files have been destroyed, job done!"
Why not just grab a handful of dusty floppy discs and snap them in front of the 'witnesses'.
Then take the magnetic bit and kill it with fire.
Sorted - data destroyed.
Or -- a new box of continuous paper, print it all out and a bonfire?
ps. does no-one do back-ups?
"You're assuming the people from GCHQ are in some way competent."
If you assume they are competent for a second, it could've gone something like this:
Spook Boss: We've had a request that you supervise the destruction of computing equipment with Snowden's files on it.
Spook: But isn't that pointless, surely they'd have a backup?
Spook Boss: Yes, but the request has come from on high.
Spook: So i'm going to spend the day out of the office destroying computer equipment? Oh well, if i must...
"You're assuming the people from GCHQ are in some way competent."
Let's not be too condescending. Remember that these people are from the organisation that pretty much invented the computer*.
I think JonP has it about right.
* GCHQ was previously called GCCS, and was based at Bletchley Park.
"So, it seems that the Guardian has copies of some classified files. What's the required response from our department?"
(pulling a binder off a a shelf, blowing dust off of it) "Hmm... According to the regulations we need to ensure that the documents are destroyed along with any mimeographed copies of them, and at least two officers need to oversee the operation."
"Mimeo-what? How old is that book you're reading?"
"I can't make out the date but there's a reference to King Edward in the preamble. Anyway, rules are rules and if we don't march down there and start burning mimeographs it'll be our heads."
*sigh* "If you say so. Shall I head down to the stables and have them ready your coach?"
"If that's what the regulations say we have to do, then you'd damn well better."
The biggest flaw in all this is that there is no independant proof that there was any such visit. The Gaurdian _used_ to be too reputable to even think about making things up, but I'm not so sure these days - after all, we all know that GCHQ would routinely deny that their own grandmothers ever existed, so why not "embellish" a story here and there?
"The Gaurdian _used_ to be too reputable to even think about making things up, but I'm not so sure these days[...]"
Indeed. It is the case that Rusbridger had to climb down from the nine (9) hour claim; Miranda was in the presence of officials for one hour against his will, the other eight (8) are entirely his own fault, it being that he requested that a specific solicitor other than the duty solicitor attend; solicitor was busy, Miranda therefore had to wait.
It is also the case that (1) Miranda was travelling at Guardian expense and that (2) he was acting as an information courier for his partner, but this was previously denied.
Finally, given that Miranda was carrying highly classified documents that had been stolen from one of Britain's NATO partners, what the fuck made him fly a route that took him through the UK? Did he think that officials there would a) ignore him, b) say 'Hi there, don't worry about the classified documents or c) offer to carry his bags to make sure that, e.g., no one from Al Qaida/the IRA/any other terrorist organisation to whom these files would be of interest could steal them? Flying via the UK was a most stupid, amateurish act, worthy of a very hard kick up the arse; it was capped by buggering up his choice of solicitor.
So who is the biggest fool, Rusbridger of the Guardian, Greenwald whose information courier Miranda was, or the information courier himself. As readers may have observed, this is a rhetorical question, because I consider them all to be stupid fools, but Rusbridger is a liar for sure. He has had to recant which detracts from his credibility and that of the Guardian, a loss making paper that represents a few fools, would not survive without the backup of its investments and is thus the instrument of propaganda by, well, by and for whom?
>>You're assuming the people from GCHQ are in some way competent
I suspect if you go head to head with GCHQ you'll find out they're perfectly competent, and stand a rather respectable chance of outcompetenting you (and pretty much the rest of us TBH).
I rather fancy their chances of reading your emails than the other way round, for instance.
"I rather fancy their chances of reading your emails than the other way round, for instance."
How do you fancy the odds of them catching an actual terrorist (and not the usual US trick of finding some sucker online that's spouting off about blowing stuff up and giving them a fake bomb and waiting until they push the button).
"I suspect if you go head to head with GCHQ you'll find out they're perfectly competent, "
...But I applaud taking every opportunity verbally to emasculate their expensive, unjustified and unmanaged activities, as well as those of the political classes (ie, all of them) who wash their hands of these excesses rather than doing the job of overseeing them as we expect them to be doing.
If that means assuming GCHQ doughnut smells of wee that's just fine.
There, fixed.
"If they showed up here I'd pull out my box of broken stuff that's going to be recycled as soon as I have enough to be worth the effort and hand that to them... It's all here. Let me smash it up for you... There are even two hard drives in the bin right now."
Yeah, right.
"You're assuming the people from the Guardian are telling the truth, and not just trying to add more spook factor to a story that's getting a little stale in the minds of the general public."
It is certainly the case that Rusbridger has had to recant substantial parts of his story.
"You're assuming the people from GCHQ are in some way competent. The fact that they're turning up in a physical place to destroy physical things when they're dealing with digital files shows how completely wrong that assumption is."
No it's not. The people who were sent might have been - and undoubtedly WERE, considering that trashing sensitive hardware is a routine chore in their line of work - completely competent. It's just the person who sent them probably wasn't. The boots on the ground were probably just on a bit of a per diem jolly into London and sniggering at the stupidity of it themselves.
The GCHQ bods did indeed witness the destruction of said hardware and disk drives, but come the time when the Guardian wanted a photo of the deceased, the parts had already been binned or sold on eBay by the IT guy. Then the editor rocks up and asks for a photo of the parts. The IT guy panics, picks up some spare bits and bobs from around his desk, mangles them to bits and hopes that no-one notices the photo of completely random spares.
This post has been deleted by its author
There's an absolutely classic, epic even, episode of BOFH in that scenario somewhere.
I do hope Simon's being taking copious notes as this incident has played out.
Mine's the one with the Guardian's original purchase price invoices to be forwarded to GCHQ for re-imbursement in the pocket.
Sounds to me like a rather dumbed down form of following procedures. Just like the article I'm too lazy to find the relevant manual but a bit of searching already gives in comparable manuals: "Volatile memory should not be considered erased until 24 hours without power has passed".
So no mystery there really. My guess for the random arrangement is that the Guardian knew it was coming and just selected some old computers to be the "ones" holding the "data". Since it was all symbolic, they're not going to point to their server park as the location or their cloud solution. Procedures demanded destruction of "something" and something was provided to destroy.
Silly, indeed.
"Volatile memory should not be considered erased until 24 hours without power has passed".
Clearly the procedures have not been updated since core memory was phased out.
You may note that there still is this "multiple pass secure hard disk erasure" from FIPS something that is making the rounds, and which is not only outdated but based on myth too.
The real problem with HDDs is over provisioning and possible changes to drive layout (format etc). So while some may be certain, certain hardware may have quirks, or certain instances might allow slips. So for really crucial data, shred the drive (non-software), for Itunes libraries shred the data (software).
But I'm no pro.
This was a pointless incident!
Try this for example...
Goons turn up at Gruniad office and explain what they are wanting. Staffer in the know points out the computers containing the file to the goons, and proposes that they let one goon guard the computers (which are left turned on, but locked - as would be normal when leaving a computer for a short while) while the rest go to a meeting room so that a senior guy can discuss with them what they want done and what level of destruction they would accept.
While most are in the meeting for 15 minutes or so, an IT member with admin rights remotely accesses the computers and duplicates the files.
Then follows many minutes of merry (but pointless) computer destruction.
Isn't it obvious? It is clearly symbolism on both sides.
The spooks know all too well that they would have had backups so it is a case of intimidation and nothing else. They smash something up to symbolise data destruction.
The Guardian just chose a few remaining pieces to symbolise the smashed up machines. Is it relevant whether all the pieces are there, exactly which pieces are shown and which aren't? Of course not. Sure, some geek will say that some part is obviously the THX1137.34 and not, as reported, a THX 1138.32 but that is not important to anyone else or for the overall story.
I wasn't very clear. The icon I used (and use again) was what I thought of Rifkind. But I thought it provided insight into the mind of the people at the top and deserved wider comment.
Maybe it makes sense when you're dealing with a clueless, lone whisteblower. ("Waa! You've caught me! But I've got a copy in New York." "Yeah, sure you have mate.") It was never credible with the Guardian.
Completely agree, this was done on request from Whitehall probably. The spooks boss probably opened his door and said to his open plan office, "who wants a half hour jolly out of the office and on the way back pick up some cakes".
Said pantomime ensues and probably about 45mins later an office in spook central are all munching on some cakes with a cuppa.
The same happens to the police, I know of an incident where the police had to arrest someone, the arresting copper thought it was a joke and complete waste of time, but seeing as the arrest warrant came from the courts he couldn't do much about other then carry out the warrant. The arrest was for non-payment of a littering fine (drop a cig butt on the street, £40).
The spooks are also allowed to think their orders are idiotic and conterproductive. They might not be able to tell the idiots ordering stupidity that with any effect, can't refuse to obey, but don't have to go beyond symbolism or make any attempt to make an action look less cretinous. After all, their names won't go public.
And unlike the police, they're usually smart enough to know when what they're doing makes no sense.
So yes, theatre. Perhaps not the theatre the politicians wanted though.
I'm can't quite reconcile gorillas going round threatening people and high technology which can hoover up internet traffic and replay later it for closer inspection and storing belonging to the same organisation. Perhaps the reports of their capabilities are exaggerated? Maybe they've gone for the vacuum cleaner approach but most of it ends up thrown out. I can't see them doing much with anything which is P2P or similar.
The other thing is the U.S. spokesdrone reacting with distaste over what happened in The Grauniad's offices. We all know they love 3rd world countries which are so eager to please doing their dirty work for them, sad to see the UK has been reduced to this.
I'm can't quite reconcile gorillas going round threatening people and high technology which can hoover up internet traffic and replay later it for closer inspection and storing belonging to the same organisation.
This is possibly because they don't.
In the original article they where described as 'Whitehall types' that turned up at the Guardian. Now it has been reviled that our glorious leader sent the head of the Home Civil Service around. I've not heard that any GCHQ Spooks where present.
....that the "destroyed PC" isn't a smashed flat screen monitor, I'm pretty sure that's what would have been the result if some "senior members of staff" at my job were tasked with destroying their computer.
An interesting question is why Guardian staff carried out the destruction rather than the spooks.
I must admit, your interesting question occurred to me as well. If someone did that to me; I'd make damn sure that it was the bullies sweating through their suits. Maybe that was part of the 'lesson' though...establishing just who the bitch is in that relationship. An alternative theory is that the IT guys handled it so they could select convincing-looking but otherwise useless kit for destruction. Or both sides knew it was theatre so it just looked marginally more intimidating if you could get the 'perps' to destroy their own stuff.
Pure unadulterated fun I suppose. If someone said to me, take this angle grinder and those big tools and smash up that shiny Apple hardware..I'd be fighting the gorillas off until there wasn't anything bigger than a flat matchstick left. Stuff letting them have all the fun
I have heard it is possible for data to be recovered from RAM via a cold boot attack depending on the memory used and the timeframe since the last shutdown (apparently certain types of memory when cooled can hold the data for up to an hour) but in this context I can see your piont.
There ARE some very clever hardware and software experts at GCHQ. (I'm ex-BT and had some slight dealings with them.) Whether those are the kinds of people you'd send to the Guardian to oversee destruction of hardware is another question.
Come to think of it, if I was a GCHQ manager, I wouldn't let any of my innocent nerds out of my sight, never mind into a building full of sneaky jounalists. I'd send guys who look after physical security, probably former policemen with shiny boots and narrowed eyes.
"I'd send guys who look after physical security, probably former policemen with shiny boots and narrowed eyes."
The snag is, it is probably trivial to fool these guys into chopping up any obsolete kit that the Guardian IT blokes could dig out of a cupboard. It seems likely that the Guardian would have established procedures to cope with a visit from the authorities once they got involved with Wikileaks.
Clever?......
Someone is pulling the wool over someone's eyes here. I just can't tell who is the wool-puller and who now has obscured vision. Unfortunately I fear we will never actually find out and thus we may well end up being the only ones with an unclear view of things!
Stupid?......
IT 'experts' grinding chips off mobos and graphics cards in front of security 'experts'? Futile, pointless, wasteful and totally unnecessary as anyone with a tiny amount of IT knowledge can tell you such things cannot possibly hold any data once the power is cut.
One can only ponder over which this was.
There are written down procedures for destroying classified stuff, which is presumably what the Govt would treat it as. Those are effectively written on Tablets of Stone with the Blood of Sacrificed Virgins, so have to be observed TO THE LETTER, however stupid this is in a particular case.
Yeah, newspapers are sods for having customised motherboards with secret flash chips swapped in place of the southbridge. And that cleverly modified and customised graphics card with a flash chip in place of the GPU, clearly a giveaway.
Yep, that's far more likely than them bunging a backup copy onto a flash drive and sticking it into the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet...
You can blame education. I work in schools and have seen taught-as-fact and even printed on posters from educational suppliers that, quite clearly, the desktop case is the "hard drive" that stores all your data. And inside that is the RAM and the CPU.
Honestly, there were posters distributed to schools from educational suppliers that do this (and not even hiding behind the "well, the arrow points to the box because the hard drive is in the box" kind of excuse, but blatantly pointing out the desktop casing as "the hard drive".
But, to be honest, the fact that GCHQ even turned up, and that people knew they were GCHQ and were able to tell the world that the GCHQ turned up - it means they aren't doing their job any more. I would argue that they haven't been doing it for decades now. These are the people who had to ask the Americans to put what basically amount to Ethereal boxes into ISP's that suck in all traffic they are interested in. Real stealthy, cutting-edge, secret techniques there. Top-end spying. Not people pissing about out of their depth and capabilities at all... And didn't they have a bit of a political campaign for "more funding" because they couldn't break Skype encryption?
God knows what we pay them for nowadays. Turing would be turning in his grave. But only when he was in the right state and passed over a binary 0, of course.
"Given the vigour with which “a senior editor and a Guardian computer expert” clearly applied themselves to the destruction of the devices "
I've had kit that's been a bugger to get into too.....
I've a theory that these are indeed pictures of some random bits used to "illustrate the story" and knowing newspapers these days, lifted off the internet. I suspect that when they flipped the computer over to dismantle it, they found they didn't have the right screwdriver set and instead cut the thing open with the grinder before pushing the resulting chunks through the office shredder. (that's one advantage of a superslim Mac they don't mention in the brochure)
Not beyond imagination to remove a memory chip and glue on a flash chip in its place... And who would really notice? yeah it might not work, but a cursory look over would likely miss it. You could be even cleverer if you bought a low end card with unused blank spaces to hide your flash chips.. then it would work correctly as well.
I hope that the Guardian sent their Safety Officer to check not only the PPE but that everyone had the correct certifications (a relevant ECS card?) for the actions they were performing (materials handling, power tools), that the room had adequate ventilation and that any hazardous materials were correctly recycled.
When the security guy checked how we were disposing of our old hard drives he was very happy. However, one pearl of wisdom crossed his lips which told me exactly what level he was at, 'Make sure you destroy the motherboards, there is a cache on there.'
I managed to keep a straight face whilst ROFL on the inside.
'Make sure you destroy the motherboards, there is a cache on there.'
Actually there are MoBos out there that include flash memory to be used as a cache. Granted that it's usually newer machines, and that it takes a newish OS, like Windows 7, to use that trick. *
The other hypothesis is that GHCQ feared that the machines had been already bugged before by some privately or state sponsored entity. It makes sense, because knowing beforehand what a big newspaper is going to publish could bag some incumbents hugenormous amounts of cash and/or political power.
*Note: If your MoBo doesn't include that hardware, you can still connect a pendrive to a standard USB port and get the same functionality.
Actually there are MoBos out there that include flash memory to be used as a cache. Granted that it's usually newer machines, and that it takes a newish OS, like Windows 7, to use that trick."
There have been MoBos with dual BIOS flash areas for many years. IIRC, an old Gigabyte MpBo I had at least 10 years ago had two copies of the BIOS in case an update went bad. Now, that's not specifically "flash" RAM, nor is it intended as a cache, but 1MB or more of EEPROM chippery could quite easily be used as a secret stash. Uncompressed, an A4 page of plaintext is about 4KB. so even 10 years ago a 1MB BIOS "spare" could conceivably hold something in the order of 1000 pages of compressed text.
And please note that I'm not suggesting who may be right or wrong, and I may be missing something obvious here, but... surely a search warrant issued by a court, at the very least, is required before anyone, be it HMG, a private citizen, or someone from the outer reaches of Gol, tools up and says "gimme all your computer data" or similar? I seem to recall from my time in a certain profession that failure to do so could lead to charges of, at the very minimum, theft?
what you're describing is exactly the same tactics carried out by a previous elected government, that ignored and/or creatively reinterpreted and/or re-wrote the laws so that they could intimidate and silence journalist, news papers and upstanding citizens that had the gall to disagreed with them.
If anybody can point out a difference between theresa may's behaviour in this and related matters and that of Wilhelm Frick between '33 and '38, please feel free to point it out, as I certainly can't see it
Um, a thumbs down but no comment as to why they disagree with the post.
Looks like Dave's got the Lynton Crosby astro-turfing team running already!
That, or we genuinely have people who want to live in a police state, where you can be siezed off the street and held without access to legal representation, and the state can steal and/or destroy your property on a whim, with no lawful basis for their actions
Wasn't me but comparing May to Nazi ministers is somewhat pushing it.
Also not for nothing but police and government can interpret laws however the hell they like - doesn't mean the upper courts (or even the lower ones) will agree with them. Look at how the Tory immigration rules (minimum earnings for bringing you spouse over etc) were smashed to pieces by the High Court recently.
It probably does make sense and it's probably the simplest explanation which makes most sense; we make you smash your things up because we can. Be very afraid. And, from the Guardian's side; sure, we'll play along with that.
It's a face-off. Trying to make any more sense out of, particularly debating how it could or should have been done better on both sides, is likely missing the point entirely.
Having said that; my gut feeling is that it's the Guardian taking the lead. I'm not entirely convinced the events did happen as described. Why casually drop such an important revelation in the midst of an editorial commentary when one would expect front page banner headlines? Plenty of outrage over Miranda's detention but little on their computers getting totalled. C'est la vie? There has to be a reason for that even if we don't know what it is.
It does throws down a gauntlet for the spooks and government to deny the claim and perhaps the Guardian are hoping for that to provide the circumstances to let fly with whatever revelation they want to make.
Speculating and creating conspiracy theories is fun but I don't think there's much to be gained beyond grabbing the popcorn and watching how it plays out. Only the protagonists know the game plan.
I think it would be useful for you to be informed that possibly many people do not bother to read posts from individuals who demonstrate they fail at even a basic level of self-awareness by not writing their own name with capital letters.
The judgement made is that any opinion and/or statement emitted by such individuals is likely to be of very little value, if indeed it is intelligible at all.
Instead those posts simply receive an automatic downvote, not wasting my time any further and allowing me to move on swiftly.
Your strangely haiku-esque post shows conveniently, along with other abundant evidence, why this is so important amongst the sea of interminable drivel that is el Reg forums.
Just thought I would give you and your equally backward peers the courtesy of explaining this.
According to The Guardian they were given the choice of handing over the data or destroying it, and chose to go the destruction route. If, as the authorities claim, this was in the pursuit of stopping the data spreading then destruction could have been provided as the only choice.
It makes me wonder whether the UK spooks want to get their hands on this data not because they want to keep it secret, but because it contains information about foreign powers they want to get their hands on. I'm sure the US isn't entirely transparent with the UK with regard to its intelligence operations, there's a good chance that GCHQ saw this as a potentially easy route to grab some intelligence on their colleagues overseas, only for that to go SNAFU when The Guardian chose the destruction option.
..... be 100% in the right on the Snowden debacle but the continuous lies about the Miranda issue recently they have lost that. Stating he was refused a lawyer, he wasn't, he refused the lawyer. Stating he does not work for the Guardian yet paying for his flights and expenses as a mule.
The second I saw the picture above and the initial statement I called bullshit, and now it's a number of pc's that just proves me right. I know most of you love to mock the Daily Mail and its exaggerating, but the Guardian with this are no different.
"Stating he was refused a lawyer, he wasn't, he refused the lawyer."
According to an article in The Independent today, his solicitor says that he went to see him and was prevented from going to the room where he was being held, until the final hour of his captivity. So, two versions here - your version and the version of the solicitor who actually went to see him. Who do you think I believe? The article also says that it was never explained to him who was actually interrogating him and that he wasn't allowed to take any notes during his interrogation.
Make that 3 versions:
1. The original Graun one which said he was refused a solicitor full stop.
2. The revised Graun one which said he was offered a solicitor, chose his own, and said beak didn't arrive until an hour before he was released.
3. Miranda's own solicitor says he got there before the 8 hours, but was kept away from his client.
Since I don't believe journos, solicitors OR the OB when each one has a real vested interest in how the story plays, I call bullshit on all the accounts.
"the Guardian with this are no different."
No: The Guardian are manipulating facts to increase public awareness and debate on the subject of personal privacy.
The Mail do it to promote xenophobia, racism and to distract the lower middle classes from the fact that the upper middle classes are really the ones ripping them off, rather than poor people.
Psyx, do some checking, the original story was submitted by Greenwald, the journo at the heart of this who also stated he will make Britain sorry as he releases documents in revenge for the detention.
So its perfectly fine for him to manipulate facts? How can we have a concise debate on anything if the underlying facts have been manipulated? How can they be facts when there is so much personal bias in the story?
Also ask the Jewish community in the UK about the promotion of xenophobia and racism, you will find they mention the Guardian a lot more than the Daily Mail.
Also ask the Jewish community in the UK about the promotion of xenophobia and racism, you will find they mention the Guardian a lot more than the Daily Mail.
Ohhh.... I feel we are getting in "Criticism of MUH ISRAEL" territory here. Scary.
Well, I'm following Robert Fisk on that subject. He's with the Indy, generally.
"Psyx, do some checking, the original story was submitted by Greenwald, the journo at the heart of this who also stated he will make Britain sorry as he releases documents in revenge for the detention."
That doesn't mean that he can make up quotes, though. That's still considered very much not cricket in journalism. And if a solicitor is quoted as saying he was not allowed access, then you can bet it will be raised on a formal level and he'll be required to make a sworn statement with his job on the line.
"So its perfectly fine for him to manipulate facts? How can we have a concise debate on anything if the underlying facts have been manipulated? How can they be facts when there is so much personal bias in the story?"
On the other hand, you can't throw it all out based on the fact that you believe he is biased. We can be cynical, but traditionally journalists don't totally make stuff up, because then they soon lose all journalistic integrity and become a liability and lawyer magnet for their employer.
"Also ask the Jewish community in the UK about the promotion of xenophobia and racism, you will find they mention the Guardian a lot more than the Daily Mail."
Anyone who genuinely believes that the Guardian is more racist than the Mail is..well: wrong.
The Guardian is critical of Israel, but I've never seen them having a direct go at the Jewish faith. However, critisism of Israel is labelled as anti-Semitic on a regular basis in the war of words that surrounds the politics of the nation.
The problem is that the GCHQ guys/gals know a lot more than most people about inadvertent data retention. Thus, "erasing the devices with an axe" really does make quite a bit of sense. For example, certain memory chip technologies (SRAM, DRAM?) suffer from an effect called "memory imprinting", where the contents of the memory chip will retain data, even after the power has been removed for a period of time. Secure processing requires that any memory used for containing sensitive information (e.g., cryptographic keys, etc.) be periodically inverted such that memory imprinting is minimized.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1304309
There is also some speculation that flash memory chips may retain residual data, contained in charges trapped in the oxide layer, even after the erasure of the memory. Now, while it would be exceedingly difficult to extract this information, doing so isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
Similarly, disk drives are notorious for leaving residual magnetic data between the tracks, even after the device has been erased. Doing multiple erasures, with alternating patters, may or may not erase all of the residual information. Erasing the device with an axe, a few pounds of Thermite, and/or an Acetylene torch pretty well does remove all of the residual data.
Anonymous (since I work on products which uses some of these!)
The idea wasn't to destroy data. The idea was to convey the message: "We can enter your premises at any time and destroy whatever we like. Or force you to destroy your kit while we watch."
This episode was relatively low key, and you may well laugh about it. But it's a first step on the road to a Very Bad Place.
My guess was that the "security specialists" knew this was a pointless exercise, but nonetheless one which they had been ordered to perform. As such they probably didn't particularly care which computers were destroyed, or whether they actually had copies of the data on, provided they could go back to base and say that they had witnessed the destruction of some computers and had directed their destruction in accordance with department guidelines/best practice.
I don't see the remains of a USB flash drive. Or the cloud backup for that matter.
Note to self: Keep some defunct PC parts handy so when the security services come knocking, I can present them with suitable looking debris worked over with a hammer.
I have this old toaster sitting around ....
On the one hand Snowden says they have access to all social media then Miranda (according to the BBC) says he felt violated at having to give them his passwords for social media.
I'm confused now, what does the "media" want me to think? That the original story was all lies and that they don't have access as indirectly this has come from the Guardian
On a side note it's nice to see my computer now knows my exact location, I remember the days when it could only pick you up from where you hit the net at your isp.
Yeah, the lack of SSD destruction is a bit suspicious.
I'd have copied all the data onto SD cards and hidden it under the tiles in the rest room, waited until the coast was clear and retrieved them.
Also relevant, the data on the Macbook Air is stored on a miniPCIe card IIRC, this can be removed easily and simply replaced with a convincing-but-not-working card from an old netbook.
Its not like anyone booted up the MBA to see if it still worked before smashing it.
if there was a legal leg to stand on, the government and it's agencies would have been down the court getting the judge to sign warants and injunctions.
This is a pure extrajudicial operation, and people should be going to prison for it, starting with the ministers that authorised this assult on people and their private property.
You could stick about 128K or more of data in there.. maybe that's why they trashed the graphics card.
Yes I'm being sarcastic, just in case some Daily Fail reader thought that 128K or so is enough to stick anything worthwhile on, or that the Guardian tech staff would be clever enough to use a graphic card's firmware area in that way. Rest of it just looks like pure mindless vandalism. Oh no, hold that thought, the motherboard's BIOS could also be flash with 'stuff' though getting the data out if it's a surface mount BIOS (most are) could be one heck of a challenge.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
