Best method For CD destruction

I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.

This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.

I've had a few ideas such as simply burning (not top of list as no proof
of destruction remains)

or surface planing (hand drill maybe with sanding attachment) - would
work but tiring on the arms.

or my best idea yet is a plastic dustbin full of some sort of weak acid
just strong enough to totally eat the data layer then wash the discs off
as proof. (Ideas for solvent/acid are welcome - is vinegar strong
enough?)

I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
thought it an interesting enough problem.

dr@him.com wrote:
> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
> In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.
>
> This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
> The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.
>
> I've had a few ideas such as simply burning (not top of list as no proof
> of destruction remains)
>
> or surface planing (hand drill maybe with sanding attachment) - would
> work but tiring on the arms.
>
> or my best idea yet is a plastic dustbin full of some sort of weak acid
> just strong enough to totally eat the data layer then wash the discs off
> as proof. (Ideas for solvent/acid are welcome - is vinegar strong
> enough?)
>
> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
> thought it an interesting enough problem.

A microwave oven may do the trick. It fragments the reflective layer,
and reacts with the dye.

In article <45ee92a9$0$31054$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, noname@some.isp.com says...
> dr@him.com wrote:
> > I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
> > Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
> > In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.
> >
> > This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
> > The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.
> >
> > I've had a few ideas such as simply burning (not top of list as no proof
> > of destruction remains)
> >
> > or surface planing (hand drill maybe with sanding attachment) - would
> > work but tiring on the arms.
> >
> > or my best idea yet is a plastic dustbin full of some sort of weak acid
> > just strong enough to totally eat the data layer then wash the discs off
> > as proof. (Ideas for solvent/acid are welcome - is vinegar strong
> > enough?)
> >
> > I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
> > thought it an interesting enough problem.
>
> A microwave oven may do the trick. It fragments the reflective layer,
> and reacts with the dye.
>

But would destroy the microwave and perhaps set fire to the discs.
I don't think using a microwave is a very good idea at all ever.

dr@him.com wrote:

>I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.

You could shred them

http://www.periphman.com/cd-shredder/per600.shtml

and if that's not enough, you can burn the remains.

<dr@him.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20589bf06bd44454989971@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
> In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.
>
> This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
> The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.
>
> I've had a few ideas such as simply burning (not top of list as no proof
> of destruction remains)
>
> or surface planing (hand drill maybe with sanding attachment) - would
> work but tiring on the arms.
>
> or my best idea yet is a plastic dustbin full of some sort of weak acid
> just strong enough to totally eat the data layer then wash the discs off
> as proof. (Ideas for solvent/acid are welcome - is vinegar strong
> enough?)
>

Send them to my son - they're history!

Senior's Guide to Computers
http://www.seniorsguidetocomputers.com


> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
> thought it an interesting enough problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Wayne." <noname@some.isp.com> writes:

>dr@him.com wrote:
>> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>> In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.
>>
>> This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
>> The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.
>>
>> I've had a few ideas such as simply burning (not top of list as no proof
>> of destruction remains)
>>
>> or surface planing (hand drill maybe with sanding attachment) - would
>> work but tiring on the arms.
>>
>> or my best idea yet is a plastic dustbin full of some sort of weak acid
>> just strong enough to totally eat the data layer then wash the discs off
>> as proof. (Ideas for solvent/acid are welcome - is vinegar strong
>> enough?)
>>
>> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
>> thought it an interesting enough problem.

>A microwave oven may do the trick. It fragments the reflective layer,
>and reacts with the dye.
a) that is special equipment. and b you will probably burn out the
microwave oven long before you finish.
b) I am a bit dubious about the acid bit.
d) fire, except for the release of all that toxic smoke. Similarly sanding
would release a fine dust with unknown hazards in it. Is your life worth
the destruction of this data?
There do exist shredders which can handle CDs. 12000 of them sounds like a
bit much.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<MPG.20589bf06bd44454989971@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, dr@him.com wrote:

>I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.

I'm assuming individually created CDs - is the destruction requirement
official (some government agency), corporate policy, or personal? If
bit-reading is a concern - a _very_ expensive procedure, given the bit
density (average about 50000 per linear inch, with a track density of
roughly 16000 TPI) then the only solution is the total destruction of
the media.

>This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
>The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.
>
>I've had a few ideas such as simply burning (not top of list as no proof
>of destruction remains)

1. If this is an official government requirement, contact the government
security officer, and do EXACTLY what they tell you to do. No exceptions.

2. If this is a corporate requirement, contact a commercial data
destruction service. They have the necessary hardware and experience,
and have (or can get) the appropriate permits. Burning, or dissolving the
media is normally a witnessed procedure, whether official or a company
destruction scheme. If you insist on doing this internally, then hit
goggle and get a copy of the (US) DoD 5220.22-M National Industrial
Security Program Operating Manual(NISPOM) for recommended procedures.

3. If this is a private or personal requirement, you have to make a
realistic decision of who is going to be interested in those bits, and
how much time and effort they are going to be willing to put into the
task of recovering the data. Normally, feeding the CDs to am industrial
grade paper shredder (not a cheap one - read the manual) twice is adequate,
especially if you then stir the chunks. Do you want to do that 'jig-saw'
puzzle? (Assuming 5 x 5 mm pieces, you've got a five million piece puzzle.)
If these are CD-RAW disks, another alternative is to heat the disks to a
high temperature (a very minimum of 200C, with 500 to 700C being even
better) but watch the fire hazard.

Note that burning or dissolving may release toxic fumes, while the
chemicals used to dissolve the media are not without hazard. But then,
cutting, sanding, or similar isn't without danger either. Wear eye
protection, and take other appropriate measures. Note also that burning
and the disposal of chemicals may require government permits.

>or surface planing (hand drill maybe with sanding attachment) - would
>work but tiring on the arms.

12000 pieces? You are going to be one very tired puppy. Hell, even feeding
them into a cross-cut shredder is going to take a couple of days.

>or my best idea yet is a plastic dustbin full of some sort of weak acid
>just strong enough to totally eat the data layer then wash the discs off
>as proof.

Surely you jest.

>(Ideas for solvent/acid are welcome - is vinegar strong enough?)

No. Contact a commercial destruction firm.

>I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
>thought it an interesting enough problem.

----
from a post in alt.humor.best-of-usenet - original posting to 'uk.misc'

> What's the best way of disposing of them in such a way that the hard
> disks can never be used again, not even if they swap parts with 'donor'
> hard disks?

Post them to yourself via City Link to destroy them, and then post
them again via Parcel Force for disposal.
----

Good Luck!

Old guy

dr@him.com wrote:
> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
....
> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
> thought it an interesting enough problem.
>

put them under a heat lamp until they curl up! They'll still
pretty much fit together so that they can be counted!

[Best bet is to shred 'em under the watch of a notary public
who can seal a document proving they were destroyed.]

In article <hYqdnS6UzpMstHLYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com says...
> dr@him.com wrote:
> > I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
> > Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
> ...
> > I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
> > thought it an interesting enough problem.
> >


Thank you all for your input.
Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off
on wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...

Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.
Fire has already been ruled out as leaving no proof.
Microwave is just plain stupid.
Sanding will work fine for low volumes - dust isnt a problem
except for the severely allergic - in which case someone else can do
the job wearing a mask (What are you - 6 years old?)- but I have a large
quantity.

Signed notorisation merely guarantees a fraudulent interest - this is
always something to be avoided - its a dumb practice all round.

I suspect my original concept is clearly the best.
i.e. mild acid soaking.

That can leave a plastic disk for proof of quantity and blankness of
each.

Furthermore the principle can have control of the dustbin.

Thank you all again.

From: "Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld>

| On Wed, 07 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
| <MPG.20589bf06bd44454989971@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, dr@him.com wrote:
|
>> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>> In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.
|
| I'm assuming individually created CDs - is the destruction requirement
| official (some government agency), corporate policy, or personal? If
| bit-reading is a concern - a _very_ expensive procedure, given the bit
| density (average about 50000 per linear inch, with a track density of
| roughly 16000 TPI) then the only solution is the total destruction of
| the media.
|
>> This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
>> The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.
>>
>> I've had a few ideas such as simply burning (not top of list as no proof
>> of destruction remains)
|
| 1. If this is an official government requirement, contact the government
| security officer, and do EXACTLY what they tell you to do. No exceptions.
|
| 2. If this is a corporate requirement, contact a commercial data
| destruction service. They have the necessary hardware and experience,
| and have (or can get) the appropriate permits. Burning, or dissolving the
| media is normally a witnessed procedure, whether official or a company
| destruction scheme. If you insist on doing this internally, then hit
| goggle and get a copy of the (US) DoD 5220.22-M National Industrial
| Security Program Operating Manual(NISPOM) for recommended procedures.
|
| 3. If this is a private or personal requirement, you have to make a
| realistic decision of who is going to be interested in those bits, and
| how much time and effort they are going to be willing to put into the
| task of recovering the data. Normally, feeding the CDs to am industrial
| grade paper shredder (not a cheap one - read the manual) twice is adequate,
| especially if you then stir the chunks. Do you want to do that 'jig-saw'
| puzzle? (Assuming 5 x 5 mm pieces, you've got a five million piece puzzle.)
| If these are CD-RAW disks, another alternative is to heat the disks to a
| high temperature (a very minimum of 200C, with 500 to 700C being even
| better) but watch the fire hazard.
|
| Note that burning or dissolving may release toxic fumes, while the
| chemicals used to dissolve the media are not without hazard. But then,
| cutting, sanding, or similar isn't without danger either. Wear eye
| protection, and take other appropriate measures. Note also that burning
| and the disposal of chemicals may require government permits.
|
>> or surface planing (hand drill maybe with sanding attachment) - would
>> work but tiring on the arms.
|
| 12000 pieces? You are going to be one very tired puppy. Hell, even feeding
| them into a cross-cut shredder is going to take a couple of days.
|
>> or my best idea yet is a plastic dustbin full of some sort of weak acid
>> just strong enough to totally eat the data layer then wash the discs off
>> as proof.
|
| Surely you jest.
|
>> (Ideas for solvent/acid are welcome - is vinegar strong enough?)
|
| No. Contact a commercial destruction firm.
|
>> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
>> thought it an interesting enough problem.
|
| ----
| from a post in alt.humor.best-of-usenet - original posting to 'uk.misc'
|
>> What's the best way of disposing of them in such a way that the hard
>> disks can never be used again, not even if they swap parts with 'donor'
>> hard disks?
|
| Post them to yourself via City Link to destroy them, and then post
| them again via Parcel Force for disposal.
| ----
|
| Good Luck!
|
| Old guy

As usual.... Excellent advice.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

dr@him.com wrote:
> In article <hYqdnS6UzpMstHLYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com says...
>> dr@him.com wrote:
>>> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>>> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>> ...
>>> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
>>> thought it an interesting enough problem.
>>>
>
>
> Thank you all for your input.
> Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
> requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off
> on wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...
>
> Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.

<snip>

Did I miss something?

"Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless?"

Have you ever seen a shredded CD?

--
Notan

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>> dr@him.com wrote:
>>> In article <hYqdnS6UzpMstHLYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com says...
>>>> dr@him.com wrote:
>>>>> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>>>>> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>>>> ...
>>>>> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
>>>>> thought it an interesting enough problem.
>>>>>
>>> Thank you all for your input.
>>> Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
>>> requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off
>>> on wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...
>>>
>>> Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> "Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless?"
>>
>> Have you ever seen a shredded CD?
>
> Since a CD has enough error correction information to even cover up for
> scratches of 1 mm in size, you really shouldn't wonder how someone can
> restore data from mildly scratched pieces of a CD.

Mildly scratched, I understand.

I'm talking about sending a CD through a shredder. And not just 1 CD,
but, according to the OP, 12,000 CDs.

Can you imagine someone sifting through the rubble, trying to reassemble
even 1 complete CD!

--
Notan

Notan wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> Notan wrote:
>>
>>> dr@him.com wrote:
>>>> In article <hYqdnS6UzpMstHLYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>> rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com says...
>>>>> dr@him.com wrote:
>>>>>> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>>>>>> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as
>>>>>> I thought it an interesting enough problem.
>>>>>>
>>>> Thank you all for your input.
>>>> Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
>>>> requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off on
>>>> wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...
>>>>
>>>> Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Did I miss something?
>>>
>>> "Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless?"
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen a shredded CD?
>>
>> Since a CD has enough error correction information to even cover up for
>> scratches of 1 mm in size, you really shouldn't wonder how someone can
>> restore data from mildly scratched pieces of a CD.
>
> Mildly scratched, I understand.
>
> I'm talking about sending a CD through a shredder. And not just 1 CD,
> but, according to the OP, 12,000 CDs.
>
> Can you imagine someone sifting through the rubble, trying to reassemble
> even 1 complete CD!
>

I think the bit you missed it that the OP really doesn't understand what
he's talking about.

"The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible." so
what on earth is this data?

"Weak acid ... as proof" ... well they look like CDs, oh and can you
check each one after just to make sure that the data has truly been removed.

Personally whoever gave the task to someone who a) doesn't know what
he's doing and b) dismisses any ideas that isn't the one he's already
chosen deserves all they get.

<dr@him.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2058adfd659736c6989973@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> noname@some.isp.com says...
>> dr@him.com wrote:
>> > I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
<snip>
>> A microwave oven may do the trick. It fragments the reflective
>> layer,
>> and reacts with the dye.
>
> But would destroy the microwave and perhaps set fire to the discs.
> I don't think using a microwave is a very good idea at all ever.


For really old microwaves maybe, and only if you neglected to provide a
"load" to absorb the radiation, like forgetting to add a glass of water.
You don't need the extra load in newer microwaves. While the CDs get
hot to the touch, I haven't seen them set the microwave oven afire;
otherwise, how the hell could you cook any food in a microwave, either?
When you nuked that TV dinner until it was char, did your microwave
burst into flames?

The problem with burning, whether with fire or radiation (microwave), is
the odor. You will need to take the microwave outside and away from any
areas where human gather due to the stink. With 12,000 CDs to nuke,
there could even be EPA regulations against such disposal of plastic and
the invisible effuse.

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>> Notan wrote:
>>>
>>>> dr@him.com wrote:
>>>>> In article <hYqdnS6UzpMstHLYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>> rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com says...
>>>>>> dr@him.com wrote:
>>>>>>> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>>>>>>> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
>>>>>>> thought it an interesting enough problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you all for your input.
>>>>> Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
>>>>> requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off
>>>>> on wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...
>>>>>
>>>>> Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Did I miss something?
>>>>
>>>> "Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless?"
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever seen a shredded CD?
>>> Since a CD has enough error correction information to even cover up for
>>> scratches of 1 mm in size, you really shouldn't wonder how someone can
>>> restore data from mildly scratched pieces of a CD.
>> Mildly scratched, I understand.
>
> Indeed, the single peaces left are usually only mildly scratched.
>
>> I'm talking about sending a CD through a shredder. And not just 1 CD,
>> but, according to the OP, 12,000 CDs.
>>
>> Can you imagine someone sifting through the rubble, trying to reassemble
>> even 1 complete CD!
>
> You said you understand but you obviously don't. We don't even care for
> reassembling the pieces, but only rather want to recover the data from each
> piece. Not caring for filesystem metadata or other stuff.

Huh?

Have you ever seen an industrial shredder? Have you seen the resultant pieces?

Maybe *you're* the one that doesn't understand.

--
Notan

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:26:01 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
wrote:

>Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> You said you understand but you obviously don't. We don't even care for
>> reassembling the pieces, but only rather want to recover the data from each
>> piece. Not caring for filesystem metadata or other stuff.
>
>Huh?
>
>Have you ever seen an industrial shredder? Have you seen the resultant pieces?
>
>Maybe *you're* the one that doesn't understand.

No, Sebastian has it right in this case. You can get a lot of damaging
information from the bits left over.

dr@him.com writes:

>In article <hYqdnS6UzpMstHLYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com says...
>> dr@him.com wrote:
>> > I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
>> > Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
>> ...
>> > I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone had any better ideas as I
>> > thought it an interesting enough problem.
>> >


>Thank you all for your input.
>Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
>requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off
>on wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...

he question was why do you want to destroy this data. Is is a legal, a
contractual, a private requirement.

>Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.

YOu know nothing is all that sentence demonstrates.

>Fire has already been ruled out as leaving no proof.

The whole purpose of data destruction is to leave no proof. You acid
etching is rediculous as a method of proof.


>Microwave is just plain stupid.

As is this post.

>Sanding will work fine for low volumes - dust isnt a problem
>except for the severely allergic - in which case someone else can do

I am sorry, but you have studied the effects of the metals and chemicals
released when sanding a CDRom? If not then your comments are simply stupid.

>the job wearing a mask (What are you - 6 years old?)- but I have a large

And you seem to be 2.

>quantity.

Is a mask going to keep out the chemicals? What is the skin toxicity of the
chemicals released? Where are you going to do it, and how are you going to
clean up the sanding dust?



>Signed notorisation merely guarantees a fraudulent interest - this is
>always something to be avoided - its a dumb practice all round.



>I suspect my original concept is clearly the best.
>i.e. mild acid soaking.

Which in general will do nothing. The metal layer is protected by a layer
which is probably acid resistant. Also the blank disks prove nothing since
you could have gone out and bought 12000 blank disks and acid etched them.


>That can leave a plastic disk for proof of quantity and blankness of
>each.

So what. YOu could have gone out and bought disks that you then acid
etched. What kind of proof is that? Again, the whole point of destruction
is to leave no proof.


>Furthermore the principle can have control of the dustbin.

He can do that for the shredded disks as well.


>Thank you all again.

Default User wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:26:01 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>> You said you understand but you obviously don't. We don't even care for
>>> reassembling the pieces, but only rather want to recover the data from each
>>> piece. Not caring for filesystem metadata or other stuff.
>> Huh?
>>
>> Have you ever seen an industrial shredder? Have you seen the resultant pieces?
>>
>> Maybe *you're* the one that doesn't understand.
>
> No, Sebastian has it right in this case. You can get a lot of damaging
> information from the bits left over.

I've seen the results of industrially shredded CDs.

(Not a paper shredder that you'd find in a home, but an *industrial* shredder.)

The result is *tiny* pieces of CDs, many of which have delaminated.

You're also talking about *totally* out-of-context bits of information.

If this wasn't *enough*, you could always heat the pieces, reluting in a molten
pile of non-recoverable data.

--
Notan

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<MPG.20597b15b9487e5f989974@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, dr@him.com wrote:

>Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
>requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off
>on wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...

Yeah, the United States Department of Defense is a mysterious agency

>Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.

You've obviously tried recovering the data - yet you feel that sanding
which results in smaller particles is satisfactory because the data...

>Fire has already been ruled out as leaving no proof.

Oh, so no one saw you putting the CDs into that fire.

>Microwave is just plain stupid.

That, I'll agree with

>Sanding will work fine for low volumes - dust isnt a problem
>except for the severely allergic - in which case someone else can do
>the job

So the data isn't important enough that someone else can't handle the
disks. Make up your mind please.

>Signed notorisation merely guarantees a fraudulent interest - this is
>always something to be avoided - its a dumb practice all round.

By the way - how do you know that someone hasn't taken the disks and
replaced them with others that you will laboriously attempt to clean?

>I suspect my original concept is clearly the best.
>i.e. mild acid soaking.

OK, Wizzer - the disks are made of polycarbonate, with a reflective layer
that is either a gold film OVER an organic dye for WORMs and CD-Rs, or a
polycrystaline dye made of silver, indium, antimony, and tellurium. Do
tell us how many months it took your mild acid to react with that. Also
tell us how you prevented someone sneaking in and substituting blanks
for those sekret CDs during that time. By the way, if those are bulk
commercially produced CDs, the reflective layer is aluminum and is covered
with a second layer of plastic. Your acid soaking technique isn't going to
do anything useful to them.

>That can leave a plastic disk for proof of quantity and blankness of
>each.

But no proof that the plastic disk is the one that originally contained
that data.

>Furthermore the principle can have control of the dustbin.

What-ever. Free clue - some people have been destroying data a bit longer
than you, and know what it takes. You obviously haven't done any thinking
or research about the subject.

Old guy

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>> I've seen the results of industrially shredded CDs.
>>
>> (Not a paper shredder that you'd find in a home, but an *industrial* shredder.)
>>
>> The result is *tiny* pieces of CDs,
>
> Right. Any of these pieces contain somewhat some kilobytes of data with
> about 50% of them being related to error-correction.
>
>> many of which have delaminated.
>
> This is no problem, since the lamination usually remains pretty intact and
> we only care for lamination anyway, since this is where the data is stored.
>
>> If this wasn't *enough*, you could always heat the pieces, reluting in a molten
>> pile of non-recoverable data.
>
> Then you don't need to shred it in first place. Anyway, you were indeed
> talking about shredding being the only action taken.

Industrial Shredder: Think "grinder." Not a flat grinder, but one that grinds
<whatever> in to tiny bits, similar in size to coarse salt.

Are you really suggesting that data is recoverable?

--
Notan

In article <YY-dnbXB0vV3F23YnZ2dnUVZ_tGlnZ2d@giganews.com>,
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed says...
> Industrial Shredder: Think "grinder." Not a flat grinder, but one that grinds
> <whatever> in to tiny bits, similar in size to coarse salt.
>
> Are you really suggesting that data is recoverable?
>
>

Like I said you didnt bother to read the requirements.

In article <slrnev0qra.uf2.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
> By the way - how do you know that someone hasn't taken the disks and
> replaced them with others that you will laboriously attempt to clean?
>

I'll answer this last one becasue it demonstrates whats wrong with you
people.

The question asked was how to do it.

In response you run off into questioning why and what for and which
government agency and now your postulating how I know someone hasn't
stolen the discs.

Instead of running off into your own fantasy paranoid lands how about
reading questions asked and answering them?

Or is that too easy for you?

In article <slrnev0qra.uf2.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
> Your acid soaking technique isn't going to
> do anything useful to them.
>

Actually it has afer 2 hours demonstrated it works just fine.

dr@him.com writes:

>In article <YY-dnbXB0vV3F23YnZ2dnUVZ_tGlnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>notan@ddressthatcanbespammed says...
>> Industrial Shredder: Think "grinder." Not a flat grinder, but one that grinds
>> <whatever> in to tiny bits, similar in size to coarse salt.
>>
>> Are you really suggesting that data is recoverable?
>>
>>

>Like I said you didnt bother to read the requirements.

There were none. There was a general blathering of ill thought out
prejudices. It made no sense whatsoever.

dr@him.com writes:

>In article <slrnev0qra.uf2.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
>> By the way - how do you know that someone hasn't taken the disks and
>> replaced them with others that you will laboriously attempt to clean?
>>

>I'll answer this last one becasue it demonstrates whats wrong with you
>people.

>The question asked was how to do it.

>In response you run off into questioning why and what for and which
>government agency and now your postulating how I know someone hasn't
>stolen the discs.

>Instead of running off into your own fantasy paranoid lands how about
>reading questions asked and answering them?

There was no coherent question.

Because your question makes no sense. Answers are useful only in context.
If I say-- just take them to the nearest black hole and throw them in--
would that be helpful? The answer is no. You state that you want proof that
the data is destroyed and secure destruction of the data. They are
incompatible requirements. Like proving a number is a prime and has exactly
three factors.

You repeatedly reject useful suggestions, because it does not accord with
your prejudices.

Do you want secure destruction of the data or do you wnat people to bow
down and state that your prejudices are fine.


You cannot prove the destruction of the medium. Start there. Then ask what
it is that you really want to accomplish and come back and ask for
suggestions of how to accomplish the real task, not some fantasy that you
have made up.

>Or is that too easy for you?

In
Message-ID:<MPG.205aab6fd7c74e02989977@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>,
dr@him.com wrote:

>> By the way - how do you know that someone hasn't taken the disks and
>> replaced them with others that you will laboriously attempt to clean?
>>
>
>I'll answer this last one becasue it demonstrates whats wrong with you
>people.
>
>The question asked was how to do it.
>
>In response you run off into questioning why and what for and which
>government agency and now your postulating how I know someone hasn't
>stolen the discs.
>
>Instead of running off into your own fantasy paranoid lands how about
>reading questions asked and answering them?
>
>Or is that too easy for you?

1. "If you want something for free, insulting the person who will
give it to you isn't a good idea." (Not originally mine.)

2. You said, "Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly
complete." People have asked what you to clarify what you mean by
"visibly complete" and pointing out that, in their understandings,
your solution is not "visibly complete". Your response has not
been clarification.

dr@him.com wrote:
> In article <slrnev0qra.uf2.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
>> Your acid soaking technique isn't going to
>> do anything useful to them.
>>
>
> Actually it has afer 2 hours demonstrated it works just fine.
>
>

Well no need to post here again then ... I suggest you hurry along and
start doing the CDs and if you've got any more question please feel free
to ask someone down the street from you.

dr@him.com wrote:
> I need to destroy the data on 12,000 CD discs.
> Destruction of data needs to be total and visibly complete.
> In other words - nothing left for any bit-reader to work on.
>
> This is a one off job so buying special machinery isn't an option.
> The security of the data is such that outsourcing is not possible.#

Hi,
first solution is: buy a shredder like the intimus 802 CC from Martin
Yale, after the job you have a good shredder for your papers.
second solution is: outsourcing in the following way: search for a
company in your vincity which is certified for these jobs and arrange a
secure and controlled transport and shreddering. It is the daily job of
specialised companies.
If you need more info PM to me

bye
Christoph

Jim Watt wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:44:38 GMT, dr@him.com wrote:
>
>> Microwave is just plain stupid.
>
> Why?
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

I couldn't resist this.

The idea looks good to me so I just tried it. It works and is quick and
easy.

I put the CD on a wire microwave pie rack to lift it off the metal base
plate and prevent screening. I put in a cup of water to protect the
microwave from over-voltage and to limit the power density.

After about 15 seconds at 1kW the CD was hot, bowed, crazed and smoking
a bit.

Effectiveness looks roughly equivalent to shredding into 5mm fragments.
Destruction is clearly visible. See http://www.tim-jackson.co.uk/cd.JPG

It's harmless to the microwave as long as there is something there, or
enough CDs, to absorb any excess power, and as long as you don't make
too much smoke and fume. The CD absorbs a lot of power, so I guess with
half a dozen you'd have no risk of over-voltage or excessively rapid
temperature rise and can omit the water.

You'd need some sort of (dielectric or wire) frame to support the CDs
far enough apart to expose them roughly equally, for doing quantity.

So I can definitively state that the idea is not stupid. It may not be
the best solution, maybe relatively labour intensive compared to
chemistry, but it certainly is a contender: cheap, produces minimal
pollution and uses readily available equipment.


Tim Jackson

Get some acetone( nail polish remover) and wipe the label side off .. done

"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:9ro193d0g01raml31qea1tkfvsr4ti2jcr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:04:26 +0100, Tim Jackson
> <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Jim Watt wrote:
> >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:44:38 GMT, dr@him.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Microwave is just plain stupid.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >> --
> >> Jim Watt
> >> http://www.gibnet.com
> >
> >I couldn't resist this.
> >
> >The idea looks good to me so I just tried it. It works and is quick and
> >easy.
> >
> >I put the CD on a wire microwave pie rack to lift it off the metal base
> >plate and prevent screening. I put in a cup of water to protect the
> >microwave from over-voltage and to limit the power density.
> >
> >After about 15 seconds at 1kW the CD was hot, bowed, crazed and smoking
> >a bit.
> >
> >Effectiveness looks roughly equivalent to shredding into 5mm fragments.
> > Destruction is clearly visible. See http://www.tim-jackson.co.uk/cd.JPG
> >
> >It's harmless to the microwave as long as there is something there, or
> >enough CDs, to absorb any excess power, and as long as you don't make
> >too much smoke and fume. The CD absorbs a lot of power, so I guess with
> >half a dozen you'd have no risk of over-voltage or excessively rapid
> >temperature rise and can omit the water.
> >
> >You'd need some sort of (dielectric or wire) frame to support the CDs
> >far enough apart to expose them roughly equally, for doing quantity.
> >
> >So I can definitively state that the idea is not stupid. It may not be
> >the best solution, maybe relatively labour intensive compared to
> >chemistry, but it certainly is a contender: cheap, produces minimal
> >pollution and uses readily available equipment.
> >
>
> Some hints:
>
> 1. The last thing you need in there is a wire frame !
> although plastic would be fine
>
> 2. You do not need smoke or to melt the disks the beauty
> of the idea is that a short exposure causes the total
> destruction of the metallic film in the polycarbonate
> sandwich without affecting that.
>
> 3. I do it without the cup of water as its only for around
> three seconds burn, you see the flashover.
>
> If you have any free AOL disks they are ideal for testing the
> method.
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com