Talk:University study finds U.S. defense contract information in 'electronic waste' in Africa

Some things that may or may not be issues (I don't really know):

• The title seems slightly misleading, I guess data vs non-wiped hard drives is roughly equivalent, but still...
• Article seems to imply that no matter what you do, someone can read your old hard drive and get your bank card off it. thats simply not true. For starters, the data could be encrypted (although probably isn't for your average home owner. The fact that dept. of Defense is not encyrpting their hard drives is interesting though), if you delete and over-write the data, it is extremely difficult to get it back (supposedly it can be done, but it would take massive amounts of resources. And if you do the whole secure delete/overwrite multiple times with different patters thing, than i think that makes it impossible to recover, but don't quote me on that)

Bawolff ☺☻ 06:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the article as per the comments made above. The second point, I complied as much as the content of the article allows. If someone with computer science expertise wants to go further than the news article sources, then perhaps they can assist with the article. SriMesh | talk 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bawolff, the implication that no matter what you do, someone can read your old hard drive and get your bank card off, is a direct quote of a particular individual. Should we start to argue against quotes, it can become messy, --SVTCobra 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Review revision 840002

Revision 840002 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Pushing the timeliness requirement a bit, but ok, what the heck. I didn't like, however, the way some info was misrepresented. --SVTCobra 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 840002 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Pushing the timeliness requirement a bit, but ok, what the heck. I didn't like, however, the way some info was misrepresented. --SVTCobra 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.