SanDisk WORM SD Card Can Store Data For 100 Years 267
CWmike writes "SanDisk has announced a 1GB Secure Digital card that can store data for 100 years, but can be written on only once. The WORM (write once, read many) card is 'tamper-proof' and data cannot be altered or deleted, SanDisk said in a statement. The card is designed for long-time preservation of crucial data like legal documents, medical files and forensic evidence, SanDisk said. SanDisk determined the media's 100-year data-retention lifespan based on internal tests conducted at normal room temperatures. The company said it is shipping the media in volume to the Japanese police force to archive images as an alternative to film. The company is working with a number of consumer electronics companies, including camera vendors, to support the media."
tamper proof (Score:4, Interesting)
card is 'tamper proof' and data cannot be altered or deleted, SanDisk said in a statement
To what value of highly funded and motivated attacker? They left that part out of the marketing hyperbole.
Re:100 years sounds good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:100 years sounds good... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Until you realize that the last reader for it will be extinct in 20."
Not necessarily. They still make turntables for LP records.
Also, if the specification is well documented, then someone can always build a reader if it really matters. File formats are likely to be more troublesome.
Re:Most likely scenarios (Score:2, Interesting)
What about EMP (electromagnetic pulse) (Score:4, Interesting)
This looks like a solution in search of a problem.
Good timing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Egyptians did it first (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not as simple as stating paper. There is good and there is bad paper when it comes to longevity. Papyrus (dead sea scrolls) and lint paper are good, but paper used in newspapers is decaying. The yellowish color that it gets over a few years is an indication of it's decay. It can be stopped, but at a cost.
Even laser printed paper have problems - the printed text is only sticking to the surface of the paper. Ink penetrates the paper more and bleeds into the fibers. But some ink is better than other so the ordinary inkjet ink may not be a good choice anyway. A classic ink based on metal (E.g. iron) may be a choice since even though it may change over time the print will last.
Laser etching in a glass pane would probably be safe from decay but would be hard to store safely - and be expensive. At least it would probably last long enough to allow the world to forget that this civilization did exist.
Re:That's what they said about CD-Rs (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not being imaginative enough. One very hot topic of research in reliable computing right now are self-describing file formats. They are less space-efficient but they should effectively solve the software-side problem of long term storage. Interesting enough, the US National Archive is one of the biggest players on the block when it comes to thing kind of research.
Re:100 years sounds good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Egyptians mostly used papyrus, it was the Sumerians who used clay tablets for documents. If baked, they are virtually indestructible (there are plenty 5 or 6 thousand years old) and museums now have millions of them slowly being collated and translated.
Re:That's what they said about CD-Rs (Score:2, Interesting)
You should buy better media. My oldest CD-Rs (Mitsui Gold, Philips/Ritek) were burned 02/1998. All of them still read perfectly.
Re:That's what they said about CD-Rs (Score:3, Interesting)
Except historically, it's not been character encoding that's the problem. It's been lifespan of suitable media reading equipment.
I defy you to find a cheap, easy way to read 50 year old media, even if the media itself is in pristine condition. Hell, I'll even make it easier for you and set the limit at 30 year old media. There are one or two companies around that specialise in getting data from old media onto newer media, and they charge an arm and a leg. There's a reason for this.
Re:The Egyptians did it first (Score:3, Interesting)
You apparently didn't bother to read the link in the parent. It specifically refutes your example and the method under which you claim it operates.
If you'd like to refute the link feel free, but please cite credentials at least as authoritative as C. Wu, Science News, Vol. 153, No. 22, May 30, 1998, p. 341 or Zanotto, E.D. 1998. Do cathedral glasses flow? American Journal of Physics 66(May):392, as the linked page does.
Re:The Egyptians did it first (Score:3, Interesting)
The tl;dr version, if my memory serves me accurately:
The panes of glass which are thicker at one side are the side effect of the imprecise glass manufacturing skill of that time. The panes were usually installed thickest-side-down because that is the most sensible from an engineering point of view: center of mass as low as possible for the most stability. However, some examples have been found of glass that was installed upside-down (thickest side at the top, either by accident or by chance), refuting the notion that the thickness at the bottom is caused by the glass deforming slightly over time.
You could probably verify all that by looking online for an article that doesn’t require subscription to access but I’m to lazy to bother right now...
Re:Not Enough Testing (Score:3, Interesting)
Summary is misleading. TFA doesn't go into detail about age testing. I imagine they temperature test these chips by "aging" them in an oven at 250C for several days.
We do that with the chips we make at my company. It's a pretty reliable indicator of data longevity.
Re:The Egyptians did it first (Score:3, Interesting)