3 ms·

I have no idea where the sudden hostility in your last paragraph came from, but it's ascribing nonexistent malice to me. I'll try to address a couple of your po

I have no idea where the sudden hostility in your last paragraph came from, but it's ascribing nonexistent malice to me. I'll try to address a couple of your points the best I can regardless. > Once a month, you copy the per-user keys that haven't been deleted onto a new encrypted volume, then tell the TPM to delete the key for the old encrypted volume: garbage collecting the deleted keys in an unrecoverable fashion. This avoids the hassles with having to failover a database so frequently This ignores the existence of database indexes. What I was saying (I thought quite explicitly) was that strict compliance to GDPR appears unreasonably burdensome to most companies, and thus most companies stop at a line they draw earlier (that line frequently being the lack of hardware guarantees re: block remapping). This is not the same as saying no one can comply with GDPR, and I had no intention of making GDPR look impossible to comply with. Quite the contrary in fact—I believe its current requirements can and should be complied with quite cheaply and efficiently, but the most effective path to that requires support from hardware manufacturers (and possibly others) that customers and regulators currently don't demand. This is not a take-down of GDPR or a malicious strawman mockery of its requirements as you're (quite unkindly and wrongly) imputing me with. If anything, it was a plea for customers, regulators, and/or lawmakers to realize they need to expand their GDPR demands to require that vendors of other parts of the hardware/software stack (particularly storage device manufacturers) provide better support for GDPR compliance.

coder543 4y ago
You made several comments in a row that were extremely dismissive of how GDPR compliance could be achieved, and your comments repeatedly questioned whether other people considered basic concepts of data erasure. I apologize if I misattributed malice, but I do feel those comments could have been worded differently. Also, this quote: > To be honest, in the age of modern overprovisioned storage drives that remap blocks frequently, I'm not really sure you can implement genuine "hard" deletes without choosing significantly unorthodox hardware (or destroying a drive every time you need a single bit erased), no matter how much you want to in software. That quote feels incompatible with your statement that… > Quite the contrary in fact—I believe its current requirements can and should be complied with quite cheaply and efficiently How can it be complied with cheaply and easily if it can’t be complied with without hardware support no matter how much software wants to? Surely you can see my confusion. Your last comment is far more in line with what I would expect to see in a discussion like this. Regardless, I think I understand the argument in your last comment better now, but I still think destroying keys is the most effective way to achieve compliance. Even if a storage device manufacturer guaranteed that they would attempt to erase the specific block you want erased, there are problems with whether that data is still recoverable by reading the block repeatedly.

coder543 4y ago

You made several comments in a row that were extremely dismissive of how GDPR compliance could be achieved, and your comments repeatedly questioned whether other people considered basic concepts of data erasure. I apologize if I misattributed malice, but I do feel those comments could have been worded differently. Also, this quote: > To be honest, in the age of modern overprovisioned storage drives that remap blocks frequently, I'm not really sure you can implement genuine "hard" deletes without choosing significantly unorthodox hardware (or destroying a drive every time you need a single bit erased), no matter how much you want to in software. That quote feels incompatible with your statement that… > Quite the contrary in fact—I believe its current requirements can and should be complied with quite cheaply and efficiently How can it be complied with cheaply and easily if it can’t be complied with without hardware support no matter how much software wants to? Surely you can see my confusion. Your last comment is far more in line with what I would expect to see in a discussion like this. Regardless, I think I understand the argument in your last comment better now, but I still think destroying keys is the most effective way to achieve compliance. Even if a storage device manufacturer guaranteed that they would attempt to erase the specific block you want erased, there are problems with whether that data is still recoverable by reading the block repeatedly.