Media vs. Data: Media is the physical mechanism on which information is stored, while data is the information itself.

Data Destruction (R2: Data Sanitization): The process of eradicating the data found on storage media of any kind, whether through means of destroying the storage media itself, or by rendering the data inaccessible.

Media Destruction (R2: Physical Sanitization/Destruction): The process of destroying storage media in order to destroy the data it contains.

Data wiping / overwriting (R2: Logical Sanitization/Erasure): The process of eradicating data from electronic storage media by writing meaningless data to the entirety of the storage area. This process leaves the media fully functional.

HDD: Hard Disk drive, with spinning storage platters

SSD: Solid State Drive containing no moving parts Flash Media: Simple storage media using chips instead of spinning platters Magnetic Tape: Cartridge or spool-style tapes used to store data, often used as backup storage in today’s storage environments.

Hybrid Drive: HDDs with a small amount of SSD storage; a “hybrid” between an HDD and an SSD. This media is effective for improving boot times (as with an SSD), while also providing significant data storage at a cost similar to that of HDDs (much less expensive than a similar-capacity full SSD).

NAND chip: A non-volatile memory chip on which data is data is stored

Physical Destruction (R2: Physical Sanitization/Destruction)

Degaussing

Subjects Media to intense magnetic field with the intent of eradicating the data. Typically destroys the media (with the exception of some magnetic tape). 􀁸

Advantages: Clean, leaves media physically intact, simple to execute, most tools are portable. Disadvantages: No visual feedback (material separation challenges), reporting limited, QC requires forensic analysis, some equipment requires periodic calibration (see manufacturer’s specs) 􀁸

Common Examples: Garner-Products, Data Security, Inc. (DSI), Secure Engineered Machinery (SEM), Proton.

Crushing

Physically crushes the media, typically with a bending wedge or conical punch, in order to render the media unusable, thereby preventing access to the data it may contain. 􀁸

Advantages: Portable, simple to execute, visual confirmation, surprisingly secure despite perception, minimal employee safety risk. 􀁸

Disadvantages: Limited throughput, marginal reliability, material recovery sometimes difficult Common Examples: Phiston (MediaVise), Garner-Products, Secure Engineered Machinery

(SEM) Shredding & Disintegrating

Shreds media using strip-cut or cross-cut shredder, or with hammermill-style disintegrator to a specified particle size. 􀁸

Advantages: Simple to execute, strong visual confirmation, widely accepted 􀁸

Disadvantages: Dirty, less-portable 􀁸

Common Examples: Ameri-Shred, Alleghany, HSM, and Intimus along with Untha, SSI (these are less media specific)

Data Wiping / Overwriting (R2: Logical Sanitization/Erasure): 􀁸

Popular Algorithms

• NIST Clear / Purge (US National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-88 rev. 1)

• DoD (NISPOM DoD 5220.22-M)

• RCMP TSSIT OPS-II 7-pass 􀁸

Common Examples: Blancco, White Canyon (WipeDrive), BitRaser (Stellar), XERASE (EPS), FutureDial, Pervacio

Note: Random character passes are typically implemented as a repeating pattern (sector-to-sector) or repeating character (byte-to-byte) in order to allow non-forensics quality control processes to be used to measure performance of the process.

File Deletion, Disk Formatting and/or OS Reinstallation as a data destruction process

These should never, under any circumstances, be considered a viable, legitimate method for destroying data. Data recovery is possible with very simple, highly accessible utilities, even by a marginally savvy operator.

This compatibility chart is an effective quick-reference for determining whether a properly-executed data destruction method is patently effective (thumbs up) or ineffective (thumbs down) on certain media types, or whether there are additional considerations (“if…”) for determining efficacy.

This compatibility chart is an effective quick-reference for determining whether a properly-executed data destruction method is patently effective (thumbs up) or ineffective (thumbs down) on certain media types, or whether there are additional considerations (“if…”) for determining efficacy.

Degaussing

While often effective on HDD’s and tape media, degaussing simply does not work on SSDs or Flash Media (and by extension, Hybrid Drives) on any level, and should be considered incompatible. Any degausser must be rated for use on HDD’s in order to be sufficient for use on such media. Tape and wand-style degaussers that are not expressly rated for HDD’s will not effectively eradicate data on hard drives. Most wand-style degaussers require drive and platter disassembly for use, and failing to complete this step prior to using a wand-style degausser on a hard disk drive renders the process ineffective.

Crushing

NAND chips must be destroyed, so bending or punching media alone is unacceptable for SSDs, despite efficacy for HDDs. Crushing on SSD’s and any other media containing data storage chips (such as flash media and hybrid drives) will not destroy all storage chips unless a specially-designed crushing plate is used. Process must demonstrate destruction of 100% of NAND chips on SSDs. Crushing Magnetic Tape is not effective at destroying data.

Shredding / Disintegrating

NAND chips should be destroyed, so commonly accepted particle sizes for HDDs (1.5” – 0.75”, or ~38 - 20mm) are not fully effective for SSDs, Flash Media, and Hybrid Drives, as chips can survive the data destruction process. This is possible because they’re smaller than the shred width and can slip through the cutters intact. Effective physical destruction of any storage media using data storage chips requires destruction on each such chip. Large material separate shredders may not shred to a particle size acceptable for SSD, or even HDD destruction. Simply because the media is being damaged does not mean the data has been destroyed, especially in the case of SSDs and Flash Media. High speed shredders and especially disintegrators may be “gummed up” by magnetic tape. Shredding can be an effective way of destroying tape media, but it may not be scalable.

Overwriting Some flash media (thumb drive, CF/SD cards, etc.) may not report serial numbers, making the audit trail difficult to automate. Overwriting tape media can be challenging and unscalable, due to the inaccessibility of host connectivity for the overwriting software tools. If done properly, however, it is an effective method for this type of media. Flash Translation Layer Basics Data wiping on SSDs creates a slight challenge due to “wear-leveling” reducing access to the entire disk. SSDs have areas of the physical storage areas that, at any given time, are inaccessible to the user, but may contain data. This is due to the “Flash Translation Layer” that seamlessly directs the storage controller to physical areas of the drive Accessing these areas is extremely difficult, and even simple, properly executed overwriting methods provide effective risk mitigation from data recovery outside of forensic environments, but it is reasonable to expect that certain organizations may require that different methods are employed, or additional steps are taken with regard to data destruction on SSDs. There are examples of ATA Security Erase (“Secure Erase”) bypassing the FTL and destroying data on areas of the drive that are not accessible through the FTL, but there are also examples of this process performing in the same way as a standard block overwrite.

It’s hard to imagine navigating modern life without a mobile phone in hand. Computers, tablets, and smartphones have transformed how we communicate, work, learn, share news, and entertain ourselves. They became even more essential when the COVID-19 pandemic moved classes, meetings, and social connections online.

But few people realize that our reliance on electronics comes with steep environmental costs, from mining minerals to disposing of used devices. Consumers can’t resist faster products with more storage and better cameras, but constant upgrades have created a growing global waste challenge. In 2019 alone, people discarded 53 million metric tons of electronic waste.

In our work as sustainability researchers, we study how consumer behavior and technological innovations influence the products that people buy, how long they keep them, and how these items are reused or recycled.Our research shows that while e-waste is rising globally, it’s declining in the U.S. But some innovations that are slimming down the e-waste stream are also making products harder to repair and recycle.

RECYCLING USED ELECTRONICS

Thirty years of data show why the volume of e-waste in the U.S. is decreasing. New products are lighter and more compact than past offerings. Smartphones and laptops have edged out desktop computers. Televisions with thin, flat screens have displaced bulkier cathode-ray tubes, and streaming services are doing the job that once required stand-alone MP3, DVD, and Blu-ray players. U.S. households now produce about 10% less electronic waste by weight than they did at their peak in 2015.The bad news is that only about 35% of U.S. e-waste is recycled. Consumers often don’t know where to recycle discarded products. If electronic devices decompose in landfills, hazardous compounds can leach into groundwater, including lead used in older circuit boards, mercury found in early LCD screens, and flame retardants in plastics. This process poses health risks to people and wildlife.There’s a clear need to recycle e-waste, both to protect public health and to recover valuable metals. Electronics contain rare minerals and precious metals mined in socially and ecologically vulnerable parts of the world. Reuse and recycling can reduce demand for “conflict minerals” and create new jobs and revenue streams.But it’s not a simple process. Disassembling electronics for repair or material recovery is expensive and labor-intensive.Some recycling companies have illegally stockpiled or abandoned e-waste. One Denver warehouse was called “an environmental disaster” when 8,000 tons of lead-filled tubes from old TVs were discovered there in 2013.The U.S. exports up to 40% of its e-waste. Some goes to regions such as Southeast Asia that have little environmental oversight and few measures to protect workers who repair or recycle electronics.

DISASSEMBLING PRODUCTS AND ASSEMBLING DATA

Health and environmental risks have prompted 25 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to enact e-waste recycling laws. Some of these measures ban landfilling electronics, while others require manufacturers to support recycling efforts. All of them target large products, like old cathode-ray tube TVs, which contain up to 4 pounds of lead.

We wanted to know whether these laws, adopted from 2003 to 2011, can keep up with the current generation of electronic products. To find out, we needed a better estimate of how much e-waste the U.S. now produces.

A researcher takes apart a smartphone to find out what materials are inside.

We mapped sales of electronic products from the 1950s to the present, using data from industry reports, government sources, and consumer surveys. Then we disassembled almost 100 devices, from obsolete VCRs to today’s smartphones and fitness trackers, to weigh and measure the materials they contained.

This dissected tablet shows the components inside, each of which were logged, weighed, and measured by researchers

We created a computer model to analyze the data, producing one of the most detailed accounts of U.S. electronic product consumption and discards currently available.

E-WASTE IS LEANER, BUT NOT NECESSARILY GREENER

The big surprise from our research was that U.S. households are producing less e-waste, thanks to compact product designs and digital innovation. For example, a smartphone serves as an all-in-one phone, camera, MP3 player, and portable navigation system. Flat-panel TVs are about 50% lighter than large-tube TVs and don’t contain any lead.

But not all innovations have been beneficial. To make lightweight products, manufacturers miniaturized components and glued parts together, making it harder to repair devices and more expensive to recycle them. Lithium-ion batteries pose another problem: They are hard to detect and remove, and they can spark disastrous fires during transportation or recycling.

Popular features that consumers love—speed, sharp images, responsive touchscreens, and long battery life—rely on metals like cobalt, indium, and rare-earth elements that require immense energy and expense to mine. Commercial recycling technology cannot yet recover them profitably, although innovations are starting to emerge.

Apple’s new robot, Daisy, can disassemble nine different iPhone models to recover valuable materials that traditional recyclers cannot.

RE-ENVISIONING WASTE AS A RESOURCE

We believe solving these challenges requires a proactive approach that treats digital discards as resources, not waste. Gold, silver, palladium, and other valuable materials are now more concentrated in e-waste than in natural ores in the ground.

“Urban mining,” in the form of recycling e-waste, could replace the need to dig up scarce metals, reducing environmental damage. It would also reduce U.S. dependence on minerals imported from other countries.

Government, industry, and consumers all have roles to play. Progress will require designing products that are easier to repair and reuse, and persuading consumers to keep their devices longer.

We also see a need for responsive e-waste laws in place of today’s dated patchwork of state regulations. Establishing convenient, certified recycling locations can keep more electronics out of landfills. With retooled operations, recyclers can recover more valuable materials from the e-waste stream. Steps like these can help balance our reliance on electronic devices with systems that better protect human health and the environment.

RE-ENVISIONING WASTE AS A RESOURCE

We believe solving these challenges requires a proactive approach that treats digital discards as resources, not waste. Gold, silver, palladium, and other valuable materials are now more concentrated in e-waste than in natural ores in the ground.

“Urban mining,” in the form of recycling e-waste, could replace the need to dig up scarce metals, reducing environmental damage. It would also reduce U.S. dependence on minerals imported from other countries.

The New revision of R2 Standard was released on July 1, 2020.

R2v3 Timeline for Transition

---

R2 Standard Key Date(s)

1. New R2:2013 may continue until January 1, 2021.
2. New Certifications will be audited to R2v3 standard.
3. R2 certificates which expire on or before Dec 31, 2021 can be re-certified to R2:2013
4. All expiring R2:2013 certificates must transition to R2v3 after January 1, 2022.
5. July 1, 2023 all R2:2013 certificates expire.

When doing due diligence on R2 certified recycling partners, it is a good practice to ask for a copy of their R2 certificate and verify it with the SERI database of R2 certified facilities. In the most recent incident of a fraudulent certificate, Secure Recycling LLC in Norcross, GA, presented an “R2 certificate” with altered facility name, date, and certificate number as part of their bid for a local government contract. Fortunately, the agency verified the certificate with the SERI database and found that it wasn’t authentic.

There have also been instances of certifying bodies that are not SERI approved and ANAB accredited issuing invalid R2 certificates to recycling facilities.  Upon further investigation, those facilities had not implemented some of the most fundamental requirements of the R2 standard – putting their partners and customers at risk.  These cases were brought to the attention of SERI through the due diligence process of R2 certified recyclers as well as users of recycling services. 

There are also cases of non-R2 certified companies wrongfully using the R2 logo and claiming (or implying) R2 certification.  Your help in identifying those companies to SERI is appreciated so that we can contact them, and if necessary, list them on the NOT-Certified list on our website.

Make sure you are checking the validity of R2 certificates of your prospective downstream vendors – and competitors – and report improper claims or fraudulent certificates to SERI.  R2 certified companies have invested significant time, effort and cost to achieve certification.  Vigilance and due diligence will help to protect that investment and the integrity of the R2 Standard.  

To verify a valid R2 Certificate please always refer to the SERI website and search for the company. Check the SERI Database.