On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Lee Winter
<lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> wrote:
You also failed to consider the asymmetry between the possible
outcomes once the "truth" becomes known. If one-pass overwrite is
sufficient, but one uses multiple passes, then one has lost a small
increment of time. If one pass overwrite is not sufficient and you
use only one pass, then you have a disaster on your hands.
The way to resolve uncertainty is not to guess or flip a coin. It is
to carefully evaluate the risk vs. cost tradeoff. People who perform
that evaluation tend to be conservative about assessing unknown
potential risks against known, fixed, and minor costs.
That is what I said. I called it "better safe than sorry" rather
than giving it a business speak spin.
Paranoia is whole 'nother story. I suspect you use the term for
dramatic purposes rather than for the purpose of clarity. It devalues
all of your comments.
I don't mean clinical paranoia. Just political. In other words,
an overly cautious over reaction to the unknown capabilities
of an adversary. It is widely mentioned in history. It is never
realized at the time, but usually some decades later in hind sight.
If the data is military or similar, it probably makes sense to
terminate hard drives with prejudice, because capabilities could
change in the future. But for most people, DBAN is
probably appropriate (if the drive still works, if not, try
some power tools or hammer until the deformation is to
your satisfaction).
To make the flip side of your argument of "you don't know 'cause
it would be a secret": if the NSA/FBI/CIA had no way to recover
data from a simply wiped drive, would they let the public know?