this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2025
74 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
40756 readers
490 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, but again, that requires precise destruction in a cheap chip while making sure both not to do it accidentally and making sure it's successful afterwards. With redundancy, if one thing fails, there's something else to do the job. Most corporations have abandoned this idea in exchange for short term profit and planned obsolescence. But it's actually super important in real security.
But like... You could just make it physical. Put a couple extra leads on the PCB, charge the capacitor, and let the button close the circuit mechanically. You might have to do a couple tests, but that's better than having storage with a delete button on it
What does a delete button add? It'll take minutes. Might as well put an e-stop button on your desk that connects to your computer by USB
It's basically security theatre
But charge the capacitor with what? That's the point. If it doesn't kill the data immediately upon pushing the button, even when unplugged, it's useless unless some bumbling idiot thief/cop/agent plugs it in before just disarming the button.
And as for fully physical, do tests with what? Another computer? Its a memory storage device with only an I/O driver and basic firmware. There's no CPU to separately run software to detect if the components are destroyed. And if there were, that would have to be physically/electrically separated from the short that is going to kill the device and then physically reconnected, which would mean some kind of mechanical device most likely. Now were getting into a huge device, not a flash drive. The device already has capabilities to read and write data. Very easy to add a chip to give that random data to write over the existing data and a lot less power than a processor and motorized components.
And again, it doesn't solve the redundancy problem. Single point of failure is always going to go wrong at least one in some number of cases. Even top of the line components and the best quality control available can't beat redundancy and it's way, way cheaper.