Databases on removable drives

[Oren Beck]

On Nov 16, 2007 11:08 AM, James Sissel <jimsissel at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ya, and Socialized medicine is supposed to be good for us all.  Much
> better than Social Security, Medicare/Medicade, Welfare, and all of the
> other government run programs.
>
> Has this post gone on long enough to mention Nazis yet?  ;)
>
> *Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins at tarcanfel.org>* wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> There is a reason. It's not some sort of strange conspiracy or security
> back
> door.
>
> They keep the data on removable drives so that the drives can be locked in
> a
> safe when they're not in use, and they are supposed to lock said drives in
>
> said safe any time they are not actually using the data. It's that simple.
>
> Yeah, there are flaws in the plan, but that's the reason for it.
>
> Actually, there were well-intentioned but not viable attempts to have
drives
'Holding critical or restricted data" kept  only in  "multiple hardware
locked" storages.

Plain english translation meaning something akin to the safes  at a cash
handling location which needs at least TWO mechanical keys and TWO codes AND
TWO Dallas Semi"Button keys"  all SIX factors of which work only during
certain externally loaded times. And that unit being kept in a secured "Man
Trap  corridor protected area too.

Needless to say we  now  have 2 sorts of reply to those proposals.

Ones that are more intensely complex.

And the present blissful ignorances of security we see all around us.

"True Security is a moving target"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20071116/ade84e70/attachment.htm