3 ms·
You make that policy and pay a contractor to enforce it, and now you're back to square #1. Usable hard disks are just heavier and more inconvenient money. Trul
by avar 7y ago
You make that policy and pay a contractor to enforce it, and now you're back to square #1. Usable hard disks are just heavier and more inconvenient money.
Truly ensuring their destruction is going to cost, including but not limited to security guards, people to watch those people, searching through or destroying the trash generated in the building, looking through "parts" to see if they're disassembled hard disks etc.
- mc32 7y agoIf it’s a e-commerce concern as alluded to, then they are in a data center and already have limited access, materials air locks, security guards and cameras, so the main thing missing is a policy enforcing it as a firable offense.
- michaelt 7y ago...and the tools, space, consumables, safety equipment, cleaning equipment, training, and policies making on-site destruction possible. I can easily angle-grind a HDD in two in my garage, where if I fuck it up no-one would be liable. But it would be quite involved to do the same thing in work, where if I fuck up they'd be liable. Unless of course your rule is "diligently follow all security policies, but ignore and bypass workplace safety policies" which I would say is a confusing message to give your employees. Of course, there's no excuse not to dd zeros over the entire disk and, (if it's an SSD) trigger a security-erase with hdparm.
- mc32 7y agoFor a big company with training systems, SOPs and PPE, something even portable such as : https://www.amazon.com/Garner-PD-5-Hard-Drive-Destroyer/dp/B00CORG0O2 https://www.amazon.com/Garner-PD-5-Hard-Drive-Destroyer/dp/B... will do the job to comply.