said by astirusty :

... The amount of destruction needed is in relation to the potential value of the data on the disk.

So for example: A disk containing the recipe for Granny's Cookies, XXX porn, and personal e-mails would require the up-most destructive techniques. Whereas, a disk having CC info, VA records, Taxpayer information requires nothing more than "Format C:" (at least based on past standards of data protection by implicated parties). ;)

said by Blackbird :

While astirusty 's pick-axe suggestion has great personal appeal to me (there's such a satisfying, gut-level aura of destruction surrounding that method), one really has to totally destroy/erase the magnetic domains of all the data on the platters to be fully proofed against partial recovery... not just punch a hole or two through it.

said by Barbara Ann :

I will never subject my Seagate drives to such conditions but it is reassuring from this article that Seagate is the best.

said by rob_in_chatt :

Still, over the past four-and-a-half years, data recovery specialists at Kroll Ontrack Inc. have painstakingly retrieved 99% of data store on the charred 400MB Seagate hard drive's 2.5-in. platters in just two days.

says 2 days. what the hell have they been doing with it the last 5 years?

said by rob_in_chatt :

what the hell have they been doing with it the last 5 years?

said by aurgathor :

But even then it still took quite a while:

quote:

---

over the past four-and-a-half years, data recovery specialists at Kroll Ontrack Inc. have painstakingly retrieved 99% of data

---

said by NetFixer :

Here is a sample thumbnail teaser. Click the link for the real images. ;)

said by astirusty :

I would like to see pictures of the "simply a cracked 'hunk of metal'" disk drive assembly and then pictures of the "charred" platters before being impressed or amazed/scared about Kroll Ontrack being able to retrieve 99% of the stored data. I am thinking the platters were fairly well in tact and it was only the housing that was badly damaged. Which this statement points too: "Everything but the drive's platters were virtually unusable..."

said by lemonade :

... but i can't see how they are better?

said by JTM1051 :

Not entirely ...

"... Two other hard drives aboard the Columbia were too severely damaged to extract any useable data, he added. Edwards said the older Seagate hard drive -- about eight-years-old in 2003 -- featured much greater fault tolerance and durability than current hard drives of similar capacity. ..."

Does give some credence to the latest not always the greatest. ;)

Edit: fixed typo

1.11.1 Ambient temperature
Operating 5° to 55°C (41° to 131°F)
Nonoperating –40° to 70°C (–40° to 158°F)

1.11.2 Temperature gradient
Operating 30°C/hr (54°F/hr) max, without condensation
Nonoperating 30°C/hr (54°F/hr) max, without condensation

1.11.3 Relative humidity
Operating 8% to 80% noncondensing (10% per hour max)
Max. wet bulb temperature: 29.4°C (85°F)
Nonoperating 8% to 90% noncondensing (10% per hour max)
Max. wet bulb temperature: 40°C (104°F)

1.11.4 Altitude
Operating –1,000 ft to 10,000 ft (–300 m to 3,000 m)
Nonoperating –1,000 ft to 40,000 ft (–300 m to 12,190 m)

said by mikenolan7 :

Kinda blows away this theory:

»Re: Best way to physically destroy hard drive?