"Accidentally"
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
528 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67242 readers
6166 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Lol how many of us thought this immediately?
Apparently, everyone 😂
About as accidental as falling off the stairs in Russia
That only happens when they accidentally miss the window.
That can happen if you're distracted accidentally shooting yourself in the back of the head twice.
load more comments
(1 replies)
“Accidentally”
Then the assumption should be the most damning scenario for open AI that this evidence could provide.
AFAIK that is, in fact, how juries are generally instructed to regard destruction of evidence.
Even "accidental" destruction?
Incompetence has a price.
Are you actually educat3d on this or just saying things? Because I'm asking bc idk
So, I had to double check myself on this one, and my original answer wasn't entirely correct.
If it is found that the destruction of evidence was intentional then yes, the jury can be instructed to view the missing information in the least favorable light, or a case can simply be outright dismissed or a default judgement entered.
However even in the case of "accidental" (ie, not provably intentional) deletion the court can still take various measures to redress the balance in some way.
I am not a lawyer but this guy is - https://joneskell.com/how-spoliation-of-evidence-impacts-litigation/
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Accidentally"
Important context:
- Data was recovered
- Plaintiff does not believe it was purposeful
- Cost plaintiff a week's work
- Plaintiff has already spent 150 hours going through data
accidentally
Let a judge be the judge of that...
Perhaps obstructing justice isn't as bad as copyright infringement?
I mean, even the plaintiff thinks it was an accident.
"Accidentally"
"Oopsie woopsie 🤭" - OpenAI
it is the 2024 version of the dog ate my homework
Barely an inconvenience
I'm gonna need you to get all the way off my back about that missing evidence
Journalistic malpractice to repeat their “accidentally” claim without attribution or quotes
load more comments
(1 replies)
"accidentally"
“Accidentally”
In Spain, in a major political corruption trial, a party turned in as evidence some drives that had been erased by Dban 7 times. They argued that it was routine to do seven passes.
It is... It's literally a preconfigured option on the dban selection list.
Source: My memory... but if that's not good enough, here's wiki too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darik%27s_Boot_and_Nuke
and DOD 5220.22-M (7 passes) are also included as options to handle data remanence.
It's an option, but not the default. It takes forever to run, so someone using it is being very intentional.
It's also considered wildly overkill, especially with modern drives and their data density. Even a single pass of zeros, the fastest and default dban option, wipe data at a level that you would need a nation state actor to even try to recover data.
so someone using it is being very intentional.
Not if you're used to taking DoD requests. It was my default for a very long time because I simply defaulted to it for compliance reasons.
It’s also considered wildly overkill
Absolutely is. Doesn't mean that people like me aren't out there in droves.
But SSDs make this all moot and HDD are being phased out of many environments. SSDs with chucking the key is more than sufficient as well.
DoD dropped it 7 and 3 pass requirements in 2006.
Later in 2006, the DoD 5220.22-M operating manual removed text mentioning any recommended overwriting method. Instead, it delegated that decision to government oversight agencies (CSAs, or Cognizant Security Agencies), allowing those agencies to determine best practices for data sanitization in most cases.
Meanwhile, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in its Guidelines for Media Sanitization of 2006 (PDF), stated that “for ATA disk drives manufactured after 2001 (over 15 GB) clearing by overwriting the media once is adequate to protect the media.” When NIST revised its guidelines in late 2014, it reaffirmed that stance. NIST 800-88, Rev. 1 (PDF) states, “For storage devices containing magnetic media, a single overwrite pass with a fixed pattern such as binary zeros typically hinders recovery of data even if state of the art laboratory techniques are applied to attempt to retrieve the data.” (It noted, however, that hidden areas of the drive should also be addressed.)
For ATA hard disk drives and SCSI hard disk drives specifically, NIST states, “The Clear pattern should be at least a single write pass with a fixed data value, such as all zeros. Multiple write passes or more complex values may optionally be used.”
Congrats? DBAN was made prior to 2006... IT people existed before 2006. What's your point? You think that people just spawned into existence in 2006 with decades of IT knowledge? So like I said... "It WAS my default for a very long time because I simply defaulted to it for COMPLIANCE reasons"... eg. my contracts at the time required it and I ran boatloads of wipes.
Regardless... DOD 5220.22-M now states
The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) is now Part 117 of Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations.
So let's go look at the NISPOM stuff which says... NOTHING! So what you end up with is companies referencing the old DOD 5220.22-M because old government contracts will actually say that specific document in contracts as something that must be adhered to for a long long time. So even though it "died" on 2006, contracts may not be renewed for some time after that which still keeps the document alive.
Now DOD 5220.22-M actually specified and defines short wipes (3 pass) and long wipes (7 pass). And in theory, could be superceded by NIST 800-88 (and probably is the default on modern contracts). And regardless of all of that... DoD internally has it's own standards, which after wipe often requires degaussing or outright destruction of the disk, I remember having a dedicated device for it that would document serials and stuff. I'd have to pull up my army documents to remember which specific rules required that type of stuff, but I'm not going to dig out shit from 2010 just to argue with someone on lemmy.
So I guess this boils down to... The world didn't spawn into existence in 2006. People are older than 2006 and are allowed to talk about their experiences from before the "old times".
Edit: And in current contracts... all our shit is NVMe and secure erase. But I'm willing to bet muscle memory would still kick in for me if I saw the DBAN screen.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Okay so what you think is wildly overkill, is about 10% of the effort some organizations go through to make sure data is not restoreable.
My org shreds discs entirely with a mechanical grinder, so I'm well aware of overkill.
Multiple overwrites being unnecessary isnt really an opinion. Here is the company that owns dban agreeing with security orgs like NIST, that anything past 1 write is unnecessary. .
I think the issue comes down to whether the org in question does that 7 passes consistently on all discs, or if it just so happened to start that policy with those that had evidence on them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
"Upise ahah my bad"
A megafuckhuge IT corp who deals in data doesn't have backups, right, RIGHT???
OopsDidntMeanTo
"Oh, silly me I seem to have deleted all the evidence. Whoops."
Didn't have enough tokens for the history whoops
“My ai ate my homework”
They must have used chatGPT to write the archival script.
The fact that clicking the link takes you to a 404 page definitely helps with the whole "accidentally" bit.
Anyone know if the story turned out to be false and got deleted or if it's just a dud link?
Surely they did NOT want this to happen.
Surely they do NOT want to win their case.
...
I sometimes work with lawyers to do discovery for corporate IT. The good news is, this doesn't really fly in court from what my company's legal team has told me. So either the evidence was SO bad that this was a better option for them, or they actually did shoot themselves in the foot.
They know they'll get away with it, so why wouldn't they
Oops
view more: next ›