Comments on: CIA Met with White House about How to Respond to Jane Harman’s Torture Warnings

By: robspierre

robspierre — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:37:27 +0000

I was referring to the “other media” someone mentioned, not to the tapes. My main point was that audio and medical imagery are not the only possibilities.

Digital storage is possibly significant, because destroying it isn’t easy or intuitive. Destroying disk-stored video would be a more difficult and much more expensive problem than destroying tape. The chances of video surviving on disk would be higher than on tape and, given access, a forensic specialist might be able to find “destroyed” evidence. So the rule in industry is, if you absolutely have to destroy data, you have to physically destroy all of the physical media that might have held it even briefly.

I’m told that even flash memory holds shadows of what has been stored on it, even after rewrite. So you have to crush the chips to be safe.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:10:48 +0000

Except that, of course, they have explicitly and consistently maintained they were physical tapes.

By: robspierre

robspierre — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:54:54 +0000

The published DoD standard involves multiple over-writes with random data followed by cross-drilling of the disk platters, crushing, or similar.

The problem with digital media is that it is so easy to copy and so frequently cached that it can be hard to predict where data ends up. There might still be copies floating around. If the data was stored on a RAID at headquarters (which is how you store state-of-the-art surveillance video), then it could be very hard to destroy unless you sacrificed the whole array, including unrelated data, and every backup tape ever made. With terrabyte disks, that could be quite a project.

By: robspierre

robspierre — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:48:36 +0000

Video can be stored on hard disk, not just on tape. This makes particular sense for users who record a lot of video (like casinos, building security, etc.). All you need is a camera, an interface card, and a laptop, preferably with a fast, external drive.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the CIA used this approach–much easier to index, enhance, study, and play back than tape.

By: kindGSL

kindGSL — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:50:37 +0000

I thought it was exposed in the first place because soldiers were passing around pictures on their computers. I remember there was a clampdown on their access to internet.

They were put into what I like to call a cone of silence, no communication with the outside world.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:37:30 +0000

They’re probably somewhere at the bottom of an oceanic trench. In pieces.

By: Gitcheegumee

Gitcheegumee — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:36:34 +0000

@34

Jeff, this link may be of interest to you-especially The Gray Zone,2004,by Sy Hersh.

Definitely worth a look,imho.

Close Read: What Did Seymour Hersh Say About Assassinations?: News …Jul 21, 2009 … People also remembered that Seymour M. Hersh had said or written …. In the May 24, 2004, issue, Hersh published “The Gray Zone,” his third …
http://www.newyorker.com/online/…/close-read-seymour-hersh-assassinations.html

Show more results from http://www.newyorker.com

By: kgb999

kgb999 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:31:35 +0000

I imagine they went the way of Camp NAMA's computer records. If this turns out to be the case, can we pleeeease refer to ironically selective and improbably extensive hardware failure resulting in all crucial evidence of official wrongdoing being lost as records being "McChrystaled"?

By: Jeff Kaye

Jeff Kaye — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:06:56 +0000

You have it exactly right, i.e., these are one sorry group of shits.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:06:33 +0000

all the buzzing and resistance from numerous elements within the military and even intelligence hierarchies

Gee, buzzing and resistece when there were gross violations of the law which went unreported. So glad we have people who have such high integrity in the military, etc.