[RAz]

true... but with enough rewrtites you could get a decent % of "masking" so that data can not be recovered... like in this case of child pornografy... you would actualy have to recover a whole frame or a big portion of a frame to prove that it realy came from a child pornografy video... and that is really really dificult

but if it's a text file you could recover some incriminating passages more easyly...

[Advertisements]

all you would really have to recover would be a file name...or the tag in the file that references it's source

[dsenette]

all you would really have to recover would be a file name...or the tag in the file that references it's source

[admin]

This topic seems to be going in circles I'm afraid. To recap:

1) If you wish to remove personal data from a computer, say to donate it or sell to someone, formating and reinstalling will NOT make your data inaccessible to them. There are techniques that WILL (to almost everyone).

For most people, performing a low-level format (filling drive with all zeros), and then partitioning, formatting, and installing an OS will be enough. If you're concerned, there are products that overwrite the data 20-30 times with random data, and make your data very secure. There is no need to destroy the hard drive.

2) Law enforcement, government agencies, and even some data recovery companies have access to expensive, high-tech tools that make it all but almost impossible to remove ALL traces of data from a drive (without physically destroying it). However, unless you've committed a serious crime, have national security interests, or are guarding valuable corporate secrets, don't lose any sleep over it.

[RAz]

or the tag in the file that references it's source

is there realy something like that? a tag that can tell you the actual source of the file?

you can't accuse someone just based on the file name... if you have a forlder called "hacking" on your computer doesn't mean you are a hacker... and i think it isn't ilegal to have files with child [bleep] names if the file isn't actualy child [bleep]...

[dsenette]

you can't accuse someone just based on the file name... if you have a forlder called "hacking" on your computer doesn't mean you are a hacker... and i think it isn't ilegal to have files with child [bleep] names if the file isn't actualy child [bleep]...

generally, if someone is looking at y our drive with a microscope....they don't really need more evidence...they're just trying to rub it in....so...yeah a file name is usually enough to cause someone to admit guilt...not to prove it

[dsenette]

admin.....we get the idea that this thread is circular...but as was mentioned earlier...anyone that would actually need to know how to completely erase illegal data off of a drive....pretty much already knows how...and wouldn't be coming to this site....i think it's really just a discussion of the theoretical at this point....as far as learning the concept of what is and isn't possible....we will all agree that for a standard user a format reinstall is more than enough...but it always helps to learn something new....because before i started really getting into this computer stuff i assumed that the recycle bin was the be all end all of data...it's important to know where the stuff goes when you press that handy delete button...and though this isn't really a thread about recovering accidentally deleted data....it's still interesting info

[RAz]

i see your point... but a good lawyer would never allow his client to admit such a thing without serious proof

i agree with dsenette on the informational purpose of this thread... and besides someone who would really really want to destroy data would simply trash the HDD...

Edited by RAz, 23 August 2005 - 08:14 AM.

[cleverboy12]

i agree with RAz because there are viruses that create [*] file names but there is nothing really inside them the folder usually tends to be empty. So yh your right if you have a serious spyware or virus problem they could create stuff on your computer without your knowledge it has happened many times usually they would need more evidance than just a computer drive ! true ?

Edited by cleverboy12, 23 August 2005 - 09:41 AM.

[Dragon]

they would have more proof then just the hard drive, they have to have intent, as well as hard evidence besides what could be pulled off the hdd.

[cleverboy12]

sorry i dont get wot u mean can u explain it a little bit more ?

[Dragon]

they would have more proof then just the hard drive, they have to have intent, as well as hard evidence besides what could be pulled off the hdd.

[cleverboy12]

yes but there are viruses out these days which change the file names and even put in unacceptable stuff but even the user does not know about it so that is without intent, because on some news site i saw this article, will they be able to do anything if they have a folder name but not any stuff inside that folder that is unacceptable ?

[Dragon]

I think you missed my point. The only reason they would be investigated for that kind of thing, is if there was already evidence pointing towards the person they are investigating.

[zxSolidSnakexz]

I have a video of someone destroying thier hard drive with thermite!

Here's the Video

I just edited it myself so it would fit

Edited by zxSolidSnakexz, 23 August 2005 - 11:14 PM.

[Michael]

Can you show us it, if it is not too big.