Thanks, agreed. IMO, the test instrument business that was spun off as Agilent and later again as Keysight really should have retained the Hewlett-Packard name.

It’s a crime this company carries the name of Bill Hewlett and David Packard .

I’m going to let some impulsive rich brat who paid $36B too much for a social media company, only to tank it and transform it into his own personal political misinformation machine to handle all my finances? Riiiiight.

I’m surprised this isn’t studied and reported on much now, or at least I haven’t seen it. Trump and the Republicans indirectly killed some non-zero number of Americans with misinformation and the general politicization of the pandemic. If we ever experience another pandemic with a virus that is as deadly as ebola but with a longer period of time before symptoms are evident, Republicans are going to kill many more people.

This article is written like a security consulting firm pamphlet.

Indeed. An old EE mentor told me once that most component aging takes place the first two weeks of operation. If it operates for two weeks, it will probably operate for a long, long time after that. When you’re burning in a piece of gear, it helps the testing process if you put it in a high temperature environment as well (within reason) to place more stress on the components.

We’re talking about law enforcement agencies, not an IT department. Of course it’s technically possible to image a machine quickly. However, there are all kinds of steps and rules for chain of custody, transporting evidence, cataloging it, storing, examining it, etc. and a finite number of personnel to perform the work. Revisiting the child pornography example I used, fingerprints and DNA evidence on equipment could be quite relevant to a case. There may even be a need to examine hard drive platters (old school spinning disk, not SSD obviously) to determine if there was data deleted in the past. It’s rather simplistic to say it’s a matter of just imaging and returning as quickly as possible. I agree the equipment being gone often presents a hardship for a defendant, but arguing that it’s intentionally set up this way to inflict cruelty ignores the reality of investigations.

How is a law enforcement agent staring at some workstations and computers to know what equipment was involved in the alleged crime they are raiding the facility for? If the FBI was raiding a home for child abuse and pornography, there’s no way they have the access or expertise at the time of a raid to know the server in the corner is only for Mastodon, the box over there is just a Linux firewall, and that box over there is a porn server. There’s no practical way to trust a defendant on site as to what is relevant to an investigation or not. I agree that unnecessary confiscation is a problem, but in general I don’t think the ill intent is there. I’m not a law enforcement officer, nor am I lobbying in any way for them, I’m just putting myself in their shoes in this situation.

If you’re thinking this an “artist formerly known as Prince” sort of thing where Prince got out of a contract, I’m sure all the debt holders have the proper legal verbiage to have agreements remain valid in the event of a name change.