Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hard Drive With Clinton-Era Data Missing From Nat'l Archives

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the vince-foster's-recipe-collection dept.

Privacy 180

CWmike writes "An external hard drive that's believed to contain nearly 1TB of data from the Clinton Administration is missing from the US National Archives and Recording Administration (NARA). The drive includes more than 100,000 Social Security numbers and home addresses of people who visited or worked at the White House. Among those whose information is on the list is one of then-Vice President Al Gore's three daughters. The drive also contained details on the security procedures used by the Secret Service at the White House, as well as event logs, social gathering logs, political records and other information from the Clinton administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.) said the Archives was in the process of converting information from the drive to a digital records system when it apparently disappeared. The hard drive was apparently removed from a secure storage area to a workplace where at least 100 'badge-holders' had access to it, Issa noted."

cancel ×

180 comments

What? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032525)

There was a 1TB HDD in the Clinton administration? I knew it, he was a Terminator!

But... (5, Insightful)

maugle (1369813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032529)

But it's OK, because the data was encrypted, right? RIGHT?

Re:But... (3, Insightful)

pablodiazgutierrez (756813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032893)

It'd be nicer if the real world would learn from the cryptography field. Meaning no White House security procedure would be considered really safe if it hasn't been publicly reviewed. Everything else is security through obscurity, and it's bound to be leaked as shown. Just speculating.

Common F. Sense needs no "public review" (3, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033099)

It'd be nicer if the real world would learn from the cryptography field. Meaning no White House security procedure would be considered really safe if it hasn't been publicly reviewed. Everything else is security through obscurity, and it's bound to be leaked as shown. Just speculating.

Ah, no public review is necessary when it clearly falls under the guise of Common Fucking Sense. When grasping for words to describe the incompetency here, I believe in the ramblings of of the Bull Durham Coach. This is a simple game. You get the data. You save the data. You encrypt the data. YOU GOT IT?!?

Re:But... (1)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033241)

It'd be nicer if the real world would learn from the cryptography field. Meaning no White House security procedure would be considered really safe if it hasn't been publicly reviewed. Everything else is security through obscurity, and it's bound to be leaked as shown. Just speculating.

So I totally agree with your underlying point (i.e. Security through obscurity sucks and is stupid). That said I'm not sure how this applies here. This article isn't about the security of an algorithm it's about the fact that someone physically stole an asset.

Re:But... (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033463)

I still don't understand, though, why the National Archive would think that 100,000 personal records including social security numbers are something that they should be keeping around. Since we've already established that there were no 1TB hard drives in 2000, this archive must have been created sometime later. Maybe someone should have thought about it a little bit.

Re:But... (0, Troll)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032991)

But it's OK, because the data was encrypted, right? RIGHT?

The data was encrypted, but the NSA had the keys in escrow. After the GOP took over the Executive, all of the escrowed keys were "accidentally" given to Halliburton. From there the data made its way to a laptop in the Middle East which was stolen by Al Qaeda. This data aided Al Qaeda in the planning of 9/11.

If only the Clinton White House had used PGP instead...

Re:But... (1)

cfkboyz (1129423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033107)

Encrypted should have been the first security but what about security cameras? You would figure that since they are processing classified documents there would be security to screen personal and there property. I have working with the US Army for years and when ever I enter a classified area we are searched.

Re:But... (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033911)

Somewhat irrelevant at this point, as most encryption methods in use in 2000 have either been broken, or advances in computer power have rendered them easily crackable.
There are exceptions, of course, but it would be pure dumb luck that one of these exceptions was used to encrypt, rather than a broken one.

The real question is, will the current crop of retards realize "Hey....since this info was lost from previous administrations, maybe stuff can be lost for us, too! Maybe these electronic health records for the whole country aren't such a good idea after all....."

Incoming (-1, Troll)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032533)

If we start seeing lots of dirt being dug up on the Clinton administration, now we'll know why.

not that I'm terribly fond of them, but they didn't ruin the place like the most recent outgoing group did.

Re:Incoming (2, Funny)

anonymousNR (1254032) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032753)

its probably them who took it on their way out

Re:Incoming (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032827)

its probably them who took it on their way out

If it was, they would have been smarter to take the time machine they used to get a 1 TB external drive in 2000.

Re:Incoming (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033125)

Maybe it's a 1TB storage device, containing many disks?

Re:Incoming (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033345)

Maybe it's a 1TB storage device, containing many disks?

I know this is Slashdot but the first sentence in TFS is: "An external hard drive that's believed to contain nearly 1TB of data..."

Re:Incoming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033413)

Because we all know that every random reporter is intimately familiar with the difference between an external storage device and an external storage drive.

Re:Incoming (2, Insightful)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033809)

As well as that....nearly 1TB of data, if compressed, could take up 300GB of space, or less.

Depending on the data, of course.

If it's just a bunch of excel files with personal info in them, they'll compress quite well.
If it's .bmp files of everybody's fingerprints, it will also compress well.

If it's binary biometric data (unlikely) then it won't compress well at all.

Re:Incoming (2, Funny)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034207)

If it's .bmp files of everybody's fingerprints, it will also compress well.

Nope--it's one file. It's the .bmp of Monica Lewinski for her photo ID badge. It's a lot of pixels.

Re:Incoming (2, Interesting)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033089)

but they didn't ruin the place like the most recent outgoing group did.

How do you know, if the data's been lost?

Re:Incoming (2, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033819)

How do you know, if the data's been lost?

Because there's no evidence of it, of course!!

Re:Incoming (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033195)

If we start seeing lots of dirt being dug up on the Clinton administration, now we'll know why.

not that I'm terribly fond of them, but they didn't ruin the place like the most recent outgoing group did.

No, the Clinton White House had their own special brand of corruption and evil. The W administration didn't "ruin" the place; the country survived okay, but W acted like he was Caesar, not the President.

A pox on both their houses, Democrat and Republican, I say.

Re:Incoming (4, Insightful)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033257)

but they didn't ruin the place like most recent outgoing group did.

Pelosi ... still there
Dodd ... still there
Frank ... still there
Kennedy ... still there
Obama ... got promoted ... still there

I don't get it. Were you making a joke?

Hmm. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032543)

Is it just me, or is "Clinton-era data" slang for "jizz"?

A "secure" area (4, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032547)

The hard drive was apparently removed from a secure storage area...

Obviously not secure enough.

Re:A "secure" area (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032611)

The hard drive was apparently removed from a secure storage area...

Obviously not secure enough.

C'mon. There was a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".

Re:A "secure" area (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033643)

But apparently the thief wasn't too concerned about it, perhaps they were running white box PC hardware that can't actually run Apple's Operating System; so the Leopard couldn't hurt them.

Re:A "secure" area (1)

ruin20 (1242396) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033995)

"beware of the leopard"

I didn't know anyone in the government used a mac!

Re:A "secure" area (3, Funny)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034139)

The hard drive was apparently removed from a secure storage area...

Obviously not secure enough.

C'mon. There was a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".

...At the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory... In the basement, where the lights and stairs had gone out...

I'm not quite enough of a geek to quote it verbatim, though.

Re:A "secure" area (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034171)

Good God [wikipedia.org] ! He has an account! [slashdot.org]

Re:A "secure" area (1)

nate_in_ME (1281156) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032703)

This is slashdot, so it's safe to assume that you didn't read the article, however, if the summary can be trusted, the security of the storage area isn't the issue...when I read the summary, I got the impression that it was legitimately removed from the secure storage and basically taken to someone's desk to be worked on. While it was out of storage is when it disappeared. Hence the "area where 100 badge holders had access" comment at the end of the summary.

Re:A "secure" area (2, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033595)

Uhh, the security is the issue. Why was such a sensitive device allowed to be removed from a secure area into an "area where 1000 badge holders had access"? As with all "secure" systems, the biggest security issue is people. If you're not going to enforce security then there's no point having it.

Re:A "secure" area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032711)

...and yet it was not obvious enough to not warrant posting that information, obviously.

Data missing again (3, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032549)

Any finance-sensitive and/or war crime reports on that disk I wonder...

QUICK!!!! (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032555)

Somebody check Sandy Berger's underwear!!!

Re:QUICK!!!! (3, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033169)

GAAAH! You just blinded the eyes in my mind! MINDBLINDER!

Re:QUICK!!!! (3, Funny)

GrandpaLeaman (1322961) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033217)

Maybe it was pictures OF Sandy Berger's underwear!

Re:QUICK!!!! (2, Funny)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033265)

His socks couldn't be reached for comment

Re:QUICK!!!! (1)

Perf (14203) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033351)

Or Fawn Hall's bra?

Re:QUICK!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28034471)

Dammit, beat me to it. For the too lazy to Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Unauthorized_removal_of_classified_material

What does this have to do with the Clinton Admin? (5, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032587)

Besides having data from back in that time frame. It's interesting that the summary doesn't point out that it was lost in the latter part of the Bush administration, and the story mentions the timeframe without being as balatant about who was in power.

I sense partisanship.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032723)

Remember this is Slashdot. Partisanship always goes the other way. If it seems to be going the other way it was an error.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (3, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032781)

I've noticed a lot more conservative-leaning folks (and moderators) coming out of the woodwork in the last couple months.

I suspect it's not that people here have partisan motives so much as it's "cool" to be against whomever is in power. I kind of remember the Old Days of Slashdot in the last Clinton years being this way too.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (2, Interesting)

Omestes (471991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033117)

You proved the parents point I think, unless of course your more conservative than not.

Slashdot always is on the whole for things that you vehemently disagree with. I've been noticing /. become pro-religion, anti-science, and even more towards the libertarian fringe of late. But then again if I was a pro-science, anti-science, libertarian I would probably think that the atheistic pinkos were taking over.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033189)

I was a pro-science, anti-science, libertarian...

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (1, Flamebait)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033865)

Just because there is an apparent contradiction doesn't make it untrue.

Science is flawed when it surmises that there is no relevant biological difference between races, or that human pollution is devastating to the environment and needs to be curbed. Science is absolutely true when it indicates that... um... well you get the idea.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034211)

[from his sig]
--
I completely disagree with every word of the above post.

I completely disagree with every word of the above post, including the sig at the end.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (3, Insightful)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033143)

I think it's just that you see people criticizing the current administration, and see it as "the Right bashing the Left".

Some of us just don't like power-hungry politicians, no matter which way they lean socially.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (-1, Flamebait)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033771)

Clinton is an asshole... that's definite.

But they've yet to make the asshole-anometer that doesn't peg when George Bush and Dick Cheney are mentioned.

And some of judge our politicians on their actions, not just on how they fit on some fictional left/right scale.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (5, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032897)

Since the summary said the disk "is" missing, i was going to chime in (humourously) with "Whether it really IS missing depends on what the meaning of IS IS..."

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (4, Informative)

kingbyu (682024) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033135)

According to the article, "the loss is believed to have occurred between October 2008 and March 2009." Thus, the hard drive could have been lost during the Obama presidency.

Re:What does this have to do with the Clinton Admi (5, Insightful)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033693)

Yeah, you sense partisanship, your own. The article didn't say or even imply the Clinton admin spirited away the data, fuck 1 tb drives didn't even exist in his administration. The article title is "Hard drive with Clinton-era data missing from National Archives". As in, a hard drive with Clinton era existed (ie they didnt destroy/lose the data before it was transferred to the archives) and now it is missing. The article clearly says "The drive was discovered missing in early April and the breach was immediately reported to senior officials at the NARA".

Furthermore it is being reported on by ComputerWorld, a site about tech news that doesn't exactly seem to have some grand political agenda (unless that agenda is to point out exactly how incompetent the IT staff at the National Archives is).

It's clear the partisan element here is you, and your thinking has become so clouded you are seeing conspiracies where there aren't any. We have a name for that, it is called paranoia. Paranoia seems to be behind a lot of the mistakes the Bush administration made, perhaps you should learn from their mistakes.

Data archives should be encrypted where possible, and data archives stored on external drives should always be encrypted. Furthermore, Social Security numbers of Clinton era staffers should have been purged in the first place, as there is no historical reason to save them and plenty of reason to delete them. This is a fuck-up by the National Archives, and they should be held accountable for their fuck-up. There is no reason to complicate the matter with politics.

Whoops, my bad (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032599)

I just needed somewhere to store some more of my cigar porn collection.
-- Bill

Zinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032627)

It was wrapped up in this stained blue dress . . .

1TB from ten years ago? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032633)

A 1TB hard drive from the Clinton era? I would have killed for 250MB back then! Proof, I guess, that the government really *does* get the good stuff first.

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (4, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032669)

The article says "data from the Clinton administration", not "hard drive from the Clinton administration".

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032777)

Yeah all the 100GB drives the data was on originally have been taken home by employees or sold on ebay already.

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (4, Informative)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032889)

This wouldn't be your desktop PC 3.5" hard disk drive or a 2.5" laptop drive. This would be an server-class hard disk drive the size of a briefcase

Network attached storage [hddfiresafe.com]

Lacie hard disk drive [slipperybrick.com]

The problem is, it probably didn't look like a piece of computer equipment and ended up being moved somewhere totally different.

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033163)

Those are not server class hard disks, those are NAS(Network-attached storage) enclosures, which are basically a raid of 3.5" hard disks.

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033493)

Neither TFS nor TFA specified that it was a vintage drive.

TFS and TFA specified it was an "external drive" holding vintage data.

It is completely reasonable to expect that every few years or so, they migrate data to more modern containers (drives). The National Archive could very reasonably have already moved a copy of the data off a NAS and onto a modern external USB drive.

Also, TFA did not specify that the only copy of the data was lost - this further makes me think that someone plugged in a USB drive, copied the data from the Big Drive to the modern portable drive, took that portable drive to their workstation so they could start chunking through the reformatting, and then the portable drive got misplaced/swiped/etc.

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033769)

The National Archive could very reasonably have already moved a copy of the data off a NAS and onto a modern external USB drive.

In what universe would this be reasonable?

The only thing that really makes sense is to move the data off a NAS and onto tape, which lasts a hell of a lot longer than hard disks. Or, of course, to move the data off of one NAS, and onto another.

Perhaps they copied the data, and then the old NAS went out the door in the wrong direction, i.e. instead of going to the destruction facility, it went into someone's truck. The question then becomes, was the data of strategic importance, or did some geek who felt underappreciated just want to snag one of these arrays rather than see it go to the crusher, and as a result prepare himself for his own personal vision of hell when the authorities catch up with him?

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033791)

...and the hilarious part is, that I am wrong. They certainly copied it off of something onto a disk. The only question in my mind is, why the fuck would you ever do that? Adding a copy step? Fail.

Re:1TB from ten years ago? (2, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033855)

What? No.

Lacies are not enterprise class server drives, they are external HDDs intended for workstation and portable applications, and ioSafe didn't exist during the Clinton administration, they were founded in 2004. The ReadyNAS which you linked to a picture of didn't exist until a few years ago.

The products you link to are highly specialized consumer-grade/small-business solutions.

Enterprise class server drives REALLY are 3.5" standard drives, that you could plug into any workstation with the required SCSI/SAS support

Server grade NASes and SANs are not 'closed boxes' the size of a briefcase; some of them are 1U/2U (size of a briefcase), but multiple standard hard drives get plugged into them.

What sets apart Enterprise class server drives from consumer grade disk drives is: speed, interface, and reliability.

A typical enterprise-level server drive is: 3.5" SAS (or SCSI), 15,000 RPMs. With a high MBTF.

A typical consumer grade drive is: 3.5" or 2.5" SATA (or IDE/ATA), 5400 RPMs or slower. With a lower MBTF (shorter expected lifetime).

I think the only reasonable explanation here really is that the data was migrated to new hardware.

This makes sense; older drives will eventually fail due to bit rot and mechanical issues, if hard drives are placed in storage, they should be spun up at least once a month, to avoid mechanical degradations.

The safest most convenient way to keep info available for archives and safe from bit rot is to consolidate it on large disk drives

Though I think their practice of letting workers move the drives around is a mistake.

They _should_ be plugged into some type of server device.

Drives should never be allowed to leave a special secure area that personal possessions (things like bags) aren't allowed in.

And there should be thorough 24 hour video surveillance of said secure area.

Remember? (1, Funny)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032657)

When 4 mg of ram was screamin?

Re:Remember? (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032725)

4 milligrams of ram isn't even enough to make a lamb sandwich, let alone scream.

Re:Remember? (2, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032771)

It depends on where you inject it, I suppose.

Re:Remember? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032783)

Oh, would somebody please mod this funny? :)

Re:Remember? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033707)

You know you're a nerd when a joke about a typo in the specification of units makes you laugh out loud. *holds out card to be stamped* Stuff like this is why I keep coming back here.

Re:Remember? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032817)

You mean it made the ram and not the ewe scream?

Re:Remember? (2, Funny)

TinFoilMan (1371973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032843)

I guess where you put the 4 mg WOULD make the ram scream!

A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (0, Troll)

BTM1001 (662358) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032673)

I call shenanigans (or bad reporting) on this story. There were no 1TB hard drives 9 years ago (except maybe in HD manufacturers labs). You might have had an external array, but not a drive. I don't remember for sure, but I'd say a single hard drive was max ~250GB in 2000?

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032701)

I call shenanigans (or bad reporting) on this story. There were no 1TB hard drives 9 years ago (except maybe in HD manufacturers labs). You might have had an external array, but not a drive. I don't remember for sure, but I'd say a single hard drive was max ~250GB in 2000?

Maybe the original data was archived on a modern device. If you are relying on hard disks it would make sense to move the asset (the data) on to media which you can maintain.

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032749)

s/drive/drives/;

Seems like a plausible enough explanation for me.

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (3, Insightful)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032869)

TFA does shed some light:

-The drive loss occurred between Oct. 2008 and March 2009. TFA also states that the *data* was Clinton era, not the hardware itself. The data could've been census data from the Grover Cleveland administration for all that it matters to the incident. The disappearance occurred during the switch from the W. Bush to Obama administrations.

-The item stolen was an "external hard drive", which opens up the floor to discussion. Could have been a USB enclosure, could have been an externally attached Fibre Channel storage array.

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032885)

Well, let's say this twinkie represents the normal size of an external hard drive in the Clinton era . . .

That's a big twinkie. [youtube.com]

-Peter

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032903)

A hard drive with clinton-era data is not necessarily the same thing as a Clinton-era hard drive. Please enroll in a reading comprehension class.

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (5, Insightful)

Trikki Nikki! (1516301) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032925)

I call shenanigans (or bad reporting) on this story. There were no 1TB hard drives 9 years ago (except maybe in HD manufacturers labs). You might have had an external array, but not a drive. I don't remember for sure, but I'd say a single hard drive was max ~250GB in 2000?

I call shenanigans on your reply. The data was from the Clinton administration. Now I am nowhere near the geek/nerd/intellectual that most /.ers are, but maybe, just maybe, the data was transferred onto the device at some point?

From an article on the same website as the original linked story (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=913335 [computerworld.com] ("Missing drive had no original Clinton records, says National Archives"): "According to the statement released this afternoon, the 2-TB drive was being used for "routine re-copying" as part of a records preservation process. The small 2.5-pound Western Digital MY Book external hard drive contained information from about 113, 4mm tape cartridges and weighs about 2.5 pounds. The tapes contained "snapshots" of the contents of hard drives of employees leaving from the Executive Offices of the President and contained both federal and Presidential records."

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032999)

This:

Now I am nowhere near the ... intellectual that most /.ers are...

Was fucking hilarious.

Re:A 1 TB drive 9+ years ago? (1)

Toveling (834894) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032935)

It's doubtful they have hard disks from 15 years ago lying around. I'm guessing they transfer all the data they have on hard-disks onto new media every 5-10 years. If it's on an 'external hard drive', it doesn't sound like it's part of the main archive, either, likely just data pulled for researchers or what-have-you.

CNN was reporting it was 2TB (2, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033705)

They were actually reporting it as a single *2TB* external hard drive.

Of course it was one of the total airhead reporters and CNN is known for not even taking to their own IT folks down the hall to make sure something they are saying about technology even makes sense on their surface.

Hmm.... (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032685)

home addresses of people who visited or worked at the White House. Gee, I can't imagine who would be interested in this information. After all, it's not like anybody in the White House at that time was a well-known philanderer with a brilliant but opportunistic wife who might want to track down some of his late-night "visitors", is it? Maybe it's just our new Secretary of State working on her enemies list. I'm not sure 1 TByte is enough to record all of the bimbos, but at least it's a start.

Re:Hmm.... (1, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032845)

1 TB = Terra-Bimbo?

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28034195)

After all, it's not like anybody in the White House at that time was a well-known philanderer with a brilliant but opportunistic wife who might want to track down some of his late-night "visitors", is it? Maybe it's just our new Secretary of State working on her enemies list. I'm not sure 1 TByte is enough to record all of the bimbos, but at least it's a start.

Ummm, the bimbos have been known for quite some time, going all the way back to Arkansas. James Carville and others spent a lot of their time trying to discredit the bimbos.

Frankly, Bill Clinton disgraced the White House. JFK got to bang Marilyn Monroe. Monica Lewinsky doesn't come close on the babe-o-meter.

Re:Hmm.... (1)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034397)

Actually the NSA did a warrentless search, and has as of yet to ask for a FISA warrant, as they were unable to find a link between the Clinton Administration and Al Quaeda before the Bush administration ended.

No worries (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032755)

Who ever stole it reformatted and is using it for bit torrent porn downloads now.

Re:No worries (4, Funny)

geoskd (321194) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032911)

Who ever stole it reformatted and is using it for bit torrent porn downloads now.

And in an odd quirk of fate, filling it back up with the original contents...

Re:No worries (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033155)

Who ever stole it reformatted and is using it for bit torrent porn downloads now.

You mean uploads, no?

Hey... (2, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032757)

They should check the London Underground train system. I hear a lot of missing secret government data ends up there.

Mooned (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032873)

Why, it's probably with the missing moon-walk tapes [wikipedia.org] .

All the lost socks go to one place, and all lost gov't media goes to one place. (I don't know where Jimmy Hoffa fits in.)
     

Pants? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032907)

Was it stolen by being stuffed down someone's pants? National Archives' Security is pants.

Re:Pants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033415)

Is that a 1TB HDD in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?

hard drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032921)

this happened before... did they check in the room next to it?

You mean that thing in my attic...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033067)

oh... so that's what it was...

Identity Theft (3, Interesting)

theArtificial (613980) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033075)

Maybe identity theft will become more of a concern when it happens to a somebody.

Also in missing data... (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033145)

Audio of interview with Monica Lewinski.
WJ 'Sax' Clinton: Step a little closer and speak into the mike...

eBay (4, Funny)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033347)

Check eBay.

Re:eBay (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034319)

Actually considering this was from the Clinton Administration, check the Adult Section at Craigslist.

No car analogy (4, Insightful)

thethibs (882667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033363)

How do we put this in terms this gang can understand?

How often has an IT admin, just doing his job, backed up sensitive HR files to an unsecured backup medium stored in an unsecured area? What? Encrypt the backup just for a few HR files? The files are scattered all over the SAN. Too much trouble. Besides, they're safe here. There's just eighteen admins with access to the area. Yah--the same eighteen people who know the one password we use for all the databases.

In an Archive, the preservationists are the "techies". They keep the archive available. These are the guys who keep building indexes and copying stuff from old media to new media so it's always readable. They are the "backup people", and like most IT admins, they don't let anything get in the way of doing what they believe is their mission.

What most likely happened was that, instead of taking their equipment into the high security zone to process the sensitive information in there, they brought the sensitive information out to their equipment in the low security zone. It was the expedient thing to do. I think also illegal.

No conspiracy here, just laziness and a lack of security awareness.

File Sharing (3, Interesting)

Swimsc (1297393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033429)

I bet it turns up, through file sharing, on a PC in Iran.

No, he didn't have relations with that hard drive. (2, Funny)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034247)

Also wag that finger on that dais.

Hmmm (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034411)

Probably has stuff about Haiti [harvard.edu] . Pretty colorful stuff there, and now he's a "special envoy"? Oooookay...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...