[paulmd]

> For example, I believe many SSDs will simply mark a block as "unused" rather than physically rewriting the data in that block. When the block gets used again, you simply set it to the new values.

Most SSDs (everything that follows the OPAL standard) actually encrypt all data all the time, and support a "secure erase" mode that destroys the encryption key from the TPM and renders the data inert. Copy the flash chips to your heart's content, if you believe the premise of encryption then it'll be a couple million years before you have any chance of cracking the key.

There's no reason this can't also be used on hard drives - or via a higher-level solution like Bitlocker. Again, if you believe in the idea of Bitlocker, then if you lose (or destroy) the key the data is unusable, that's the entire sales pitch of Bitlocker. Drive data is completely inaccessible if removed from their PC and the TPM it contains, and people don't like this because Windows 11 is turning this on by default now.

Physically crushing a drive is needless and wasteful unless you fundamentally disagree that cryptography exists and can work. And it also completely eliminates the possibility that your e-waste vendor is screwing you around behind your back. Fine, have a bunch of white-noise data if you like.

The problem is that businesses like to reduce a 1-in-a-trillion chance to zero, and they're punished if something does happen. And I'm sure hard drive companies like the extra sales and probably nudge them into it too. But it's overall a market failure and a needless e-waste stream, of the kind that the EU does like to eliminate.

[SkyPuncher]

I understand that. I'm over simplifying some things.

At the end of the day, physically destroying something is clear and easily understandable to absolutely anyone who is put in charge of device disposal. No conditionals, no complex configurations. Take the hard drive out and destroy it.