28 ms·

This is not entertaining (or, reading into subtext, absurd) at all. It is widely accepted that complete physical destruction of hard drives is required to avoid

This is not entertaining (or, reading into subtext, absurd) at all. It is widely accepted that complete physical destruction of hard drives is required to avoid future forensic recovery, which is what Rusbridger is referring to when he mentions "passing Chinese agents."

lukeschlather 13y ago
He already made it clear that the data is replicated broadly, and so it is absurd, because physically destroying laptops only increases the desire to increase the integrity of the data. Increasing integrity against this sort of attack naturally compromises security, which means "passing Chinese agents" are more likely to have access to the data now.
rdtsc 13y ago
I think he should with a completely serious face comply, deliver the disk to them and then smash it with a sledgehammer right in front of their eyes. Now of course he should have copies spread in multiple locations. But, hey, they just asked for the information to be returned and destroyed, just comply, very easy. Sometimes it is worth taking pleasure laughing at the stupidity of those in power. That has to be exposed alongside malice and corruption.
- jmadsen 13y ago
  Reminds me of the many times I emailed spreadsheet files to marketing, saying, "I need that back when you're done" Generally they got it, but it took some of them a while.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Reminds me of the bad old days of locking VCS.
- grey-area 13y ago
  That's exactly what he did.
vidarh 13y ago
If GCHQ wishes to have my laptop harddrive destroyed to destroy data (I don't know - maybe they don't like 8-bit chiptunes or something), all they'd achieve would be that I'd have to restore from my RAID mirror on my home server, the rsync'd third drive on my home server, or from my remote backup outside the UK. Complete physical destruction of any one copy just indicates they're either clueless or assumes their adversary is entirely clueless. Furthermore, my first reaction to a risk of harddrive destroying GCHQ goons would be to sign up to a few more online backup services, and hide another NAS somewhere under my floorboards and maybe get my mom outside the UK to host an external drive for me to mirror to. In the Guardians case, the have multiple reporters on this case, have Greenwald in Brazil, as well as have provided data to Poitras in Berlin and to Washington Post, and doubtlessly they have other reporters outside the UK. In other words: Plenty of places to leave copies.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  The question is whether it is about destruction of data or whether it is about intimidation and strong-arming.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    If it is intimidation and strong-arming, it is also exceptionally ineffective. The reaction at the Guardian presumably was something along the lines of total confusion. They'd made it clear they had copies. They'd made it clear the story could and would be reported from anywhere. And the only response these GCHQ goons could come up with was to smash a Macbook? Unless someone at The Guardian are particularly sensitive Apple fans that might see their Macbook as an extension of themselves, it seems like a rather feeble attempt at intimidation. That's what makes this so ridiculous. It's like some comedy sketch where some big burly sketchy guy comes over and "threatens" to push your pencils off your desk and drop your papers on the floor. I get images of Dupond and Dupont (Thomson and Thompson) from Tintin - a pair of bumbling buffoons. It makes me kinda wish I had something to leak - if this is the UK government response, leaking would be fun for the whole family.
    - 13y ago

lukeschlather 13y ago

He already made it clear that the data is replicated broadly, and so it is absurd, because physically destroying laptops only increases the desire to increase the integrity of the data. Increasing integrity against this sort of attack naturally compromises security, which means "passing Chinese agents" are more likely to have access to the data now.

rdtsc 13y ago

I think he should with a completely serious face comply, deliver the disk to them and then smash it with a sledgehammer right in front of their eyes. Now of course he should have copies spread in multiple locations. But, hey, they just asked for the information to be returned and destroyed, just comply, very easy. Sometimes it is worth taking pleasure laughing at the stupidity of those in power. That has to be exposed alongside malice and corruption.

jmadsen 13y ago
Reminds me of the many times I emailed spreadsheet files to marketing, saying, "I need that back when you're done" Generally they got it, but it took some of them a while.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Reminds me of the bad old days of locking VCS.
grey-area 13y ago
That's exactly what he did.

vidarh 13y ago

If GCHQ wishes to have my laptop harddrive destroyed to destroy data (I don't know - maybe they don't like 8-bit chiptunes or something), all they'd achieve would be that I'd have to restore from my RAID mirror on my home server, the rsync'd third drive on my home server, or from my remote backup outside the UK. Complete physical destruction of any one copy just indicates they're either clueless or assumes their adversary is entirely clueless. Furthermore, my first reaction to a risk of harddrive destroying GCHQ goons would be to sign up to a few more online backup services, and hide another NAS somewhere under my floorboards and maybe get my mom outside the UK to host an external drive for me to mirror to. In the Guardians case, the have multiple reporters on this case, have Greenwald in Brazil, as well as have provided data to Poitras in Berlin and to Washington Post, and doubtlessly they have other reporters outside the UK. In other words: Plenty of places to leave copies.

einhverfr 13y ago
The question is whether it is about destruction of data or whether it is about intimidation and strong-arming.
- vidarh 13y ago
  If it is intimidation and strong-arming, it is also exceptionally ineffective. The reaction at the Guardian presumably was something along the lines of total confusion. They'd made it clear they had copies. They'd made it clear the story could and would be reported from anywhere. And the only response these GCHQ goons could come up with was to smash a Macbook? Unless someone at The Guardian are particularly sensitive Apple fans that might see their Macbook as an extension of themselves, it seems like a rather feeble attempt at intimidation. That's what makes this so ridiculous. It's like some comedy sketch where some big burly sketchy guy comes over and "threatens" to push your pencils off your desk and drop your papers on the floor. I get images of Dupond and Dupont (Thomson and Thompson) from Tintin - a pair of bumbling buffoons. It makes me kinda wish I had something to leak - if this is the UK government response, leaking would be fun for the whole family.
  - 13y ago