|
Erased or purged?
It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? |
Erased or purged?
On 8/12/15 12:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Bull****. You can easily "purge" a hard drive with system software or with inexpensive third party software. |
Erased or purged?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:08:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Why do you think they are even the same hard drives? Even if they are, it is trivial to actually erase all of the data with a method that would even prevent NSA from recovering it. The easiest way is to delete the data, then fill the drive up until it is full with anything. Rinse repeat 6 or 7 times if you want to get to the DoD standard. I could write up a DOS batch file to do this in a minute or two. (Yes DOS still runs on Windoze) |
Erased or purged?
|
Erased or purged?
|
Erased or purged?
|
Erased or purged?
On 8/12/2015 1:16 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:04:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 12:26 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:08:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Why do you think they are even the same hard drives? Even if they are, it is trivial to actually erase all of the data with a method that would even prevent NSA from recovering it. The easiest way is to delete the data, then fill the drive up until it is full with anything. Rinse repeat 6 or 7 times if you want to get to the DoD standard. I could write up a DOS batch file to do this in a minute or two. (Yes DOS still runs on Windoze) We are talking Hillary Clinton here, not a computer geek. I am sure that when she was first asked to hand over the server she didn't hop in the Clintonmobile and head for Walmart for some hard drive purging software. That was the point of my comment. If she felt it necessary to attempt to completely purge the drives of all former data as opposed to simply "deleting" emails (and therefore making them available for reconstruction) it would seem that it was very important to her to destroy the data. An inspection of the drive (or drives) should reveal how much effort was made to "erase" them. We are talking about Hillary. I bet she never changed a diaper, nor did she administer that server. She had a geek on the payroll and I bet that "server" was on several different machines over the years. I am a junk collector and I am not still running the same hardware as I was 3 years ago. If Hillary knows anything, it is how to destroy evidence. All you need to do is delete the files, then copy what you want to keep to another machine and destroy the original. I am not a tin hat wearing conspiracy follower, nor am I a computer geek. I just watch the events unfold. Hillary has been very reluctant to give up emails and/or the drives on the server that they were located on. She has been dragging her feet on their releases for a long time. She finally released what she was willing to release due to the increasing pressure and, low and behold, a random sampling of 40 emails contained not just classified info but *Top Secret* info. Now it will become a debate as to what the classification of that info was at the time it was recorded on her server. To me, it matters not. As Secretary of State Hillary had an obligation to both recognize and ensure the security of anything related to national security that even could remotely be considered classified. Her actions follow a typical Clinton style of slowly leaking the truth out in a manner that confuses the issue, causes disinterest and otherwise swings the finger away from them with respect to any mistakes or wrongdoing. |
Erased or purged?
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/12/2015 1:16 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:04:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 12:26 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:08:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Why do you think they are even the same hard drives? Even if they are, it is trivial to actually erase all of the data with a method that would even prevent NSA from recovering it. The easiest way is to delete the data, then fill the drive up until it is full with anything. Rinse repeat 6 or 7 times if you want to get to the DoD standard. I could write up a DOS batch file to do this in a minute or two. (Yes DOS still runs on Windoze) We are talking Hillary Clinton here, not a computer geek. I am sure that when she was first asked to hand over the server she didn't hop in the Clintonmobile and head for Walmart for some hard drive purging software. That was the point of my comment. If she felt it necessary to attempt to completely purge the drives of all former data as opposed to simply "deleting" emails (and therefore making them available for reconstruction) it would seem that it was very important to her to destroy the data. An inspection of the drive (or drives) should reveal how much effort was made to "erase" them. We are talking about Hillary. I bet she never changed a diaper, nor did she administer that server. She had a geek on the payroll and I bet that "server" was on several different machines over the years. I am a junk collector and I am not still running the same hardware as I was 3 years ago. If Hillary knows anything, it is how to destroy evidence. All you need to do is delete the files, then copy what you want to keep to another machine and destroy the original. I am not a tin hat wearing conspiracy follower, nor am I a computer geek. I just watch the events unfold. Hillary has been very reluctant to give up emails and/or the drives on the server that they were located on. She has been dragging her feet on their releases for a long time. She finally released what she was willing to release due to the increasing pressure and, low and behold, a random sampling of 40 emails contained not just classified info but *Top Secret* info. Now it will become a debate as to what the classification of that info was at the time it was recorded on her server. To me, it matters not. As Secretary of State Hillary had an obligation to both recognize and ensure the security of anything related to national security that even could remotely be considered classified. Her actions follow a typical Clinton style of slowly leaking the truth out in a manner that confuses the issue, causes disinterest and otherwise swings the finger away from them with respect to any mistakes or wrongdoing. You're exactly right. I noticed that the wiki page referenced earlier was edited last month. It wouldn't surprise me if some manufactured claims about the Bush email issue were recently added to give Clinton supporters a place to point to and exclaim, "Bush did it too!". More damage control. |
Erased or purged?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 8/12/2015 1:16 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:04:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 12:26 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:08:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Why do you think they are even the same hard drives? Even if they are, it is trivial to actually erase all of the data with a method that would even prevent NSA from recovering it. The easiest way is to delete the data, then fill the drive up until it is full with anything. Rinse repeat 6 or 7 times if you want to get to the DoD standard. I could write up a DOS batch file to do this in a minute or two. (Yes DOS still runs on Windoze) We are talking Hillary Clinton here, not a computer geek. I am sure that when she was first asked to hand over the server she didn't hop in the Clintonmobile and head for Walmart for some hard drive purging software. That was the point of my comment. If she felt it necessary to attempt to completely purge the drives of all former data as opposed to simply "deleting" emails (and therefore making them available for reconstruction) it would seem that it was very important to her to destroy the data. An inspection of the drive (or drives) should reveal how much effort was made to "erase" them. We are talking about Hillary. I bet she never changed a diaper, nor did she administer that server. She had a geek on the payroll and I bet that "server" was on several different machines over the years. I am a junk collector and I am not still running the same hardware as I was 3 years ago. If Hillary knows anything, it is how to destroy evidence. All you need to do is delete the files, then copy what you want to keep to another machine and destroy the original. I am not a tin hat wearing conspiracy follower, nor am I a computer geek. I just watch the events unfold. Hillary has been very reluctant to give up emails and/or the drives on the server that they were located on. She has been dragging her feet on their releases for a long time. She finally released what she was willing to release due to the increasing pressure and, low and behold, a random sampling of 40 emails contained not just classified info but *Top Secret* info. Now it will become a debate as to what the classification of that info was at the time it was recorded on her server. To me, it matters not. As Secretary of State Hillary had an obligation to both recognize and ensure the security of anything related to national security that even could remotely be considered classified. Her actions follow a typical Clinton style of slowly leaking the truth out in a manner that confuses the issue, causes disinterest and otherwise swings the finger away from them with respect to any mistakes or wrongdoing. In real life, all you have to do to make "erased data" go away is to keep your drives pretty full, even if it is just copies of your music library. If there are no unused sectors, there is no ghost data. Time is your friend. The more times you overwrite these spare sectors, the less chance that anything could be recovered, even with the most sophistocated attempts. |
Erased or purged?
On 8/12/2015 3:24 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 1:16 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:04:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 12:26 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:08:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Why do you think they are even the same hard drives? Even if they are, it is trivial to actually erase all of the data with a method that would even prevent NSA from recovering it. The easiest way is to delete the data, then fill the drive up until it is full with anything. Rinse repeat 6 or 7 times if you want to get to the DoD standard. I could write up a DOS batch file to do this in a minute or two. (Yes DOS still runs on Windoze) We are talking Hillary Clinton here, not a computer geek. I am sure that when she was first asked to hand over the server she didn't hop in the Clintonmobile and head for Walmart for some hard drive purging software. That was the point of my comment. If she felt it necessary to attempt to completely purge the drives of all former data as opposed to simply "deleting" emails (and therefore making them available for reconstruction) it would seem that it was very important to her to destroy the data. An inspection of the drive (or drives) should reveal how much effort was made to "erase" them. We are talking about Hillary. I bet she never changed a diaper, nor did she administer that server. She had a geek on the payroll and I bet that "server" was on several different machines over the years. I am a junk collector and I am not still running the same hardware as I was 3 years ago. If Hillary knows anything, it is how to destroy evidence. All you need to do is delete the files, then copy what you want to keep to another machine and destroy the original. I am not a tin hat wearing conspiracy follower, nor am I a computer geek. I just watch the events unfold. Hillary has been very reluctant to give up emails and/or the drives on the server that they were located on. She has been dragging her feet on their releases for a long time. She finally released what she was willing to release due to the increasing pressure and, low and behold, a random sampling of 40 emails contained not just classified info but *Top Secret* info. Now it will become a debate as to what the classification of that info was at the time it was recorded on her server. To me, it matters not. As Secretary of State Hillary had an obligation to both recognize and ensure the security of anything related to national security that even could remotely be considered classified. Her actions follow a typical Clinton style of slowly leaking the truth out in a manner that confuses the issue, causes disinterest and otherwise swings the finger away from them with respect to any mistakes or wrongdoing. In real life, all you have to do to make "erased data" go away is to keep your drives pretty full, even if it is just copies of your music library. If there are no unused sectors, there is no ghost data. Time is your friend. The more times you overwrite these spare sectors, the less chance that anything could be recovered, even with the most sophistocated attempts. I am sure you are technically correct but again, we are talking about Hillary Clinton and her concern about what was on those drives. Like you said, she probably had a hired geek as an administrator for the server although some times we give important people too much credit. It would be interesting to talk to the geek with him or her under oath. Ask what instructions he or she had regarding the remaining data on the server, what to do with it and how. |
Erased or purged?
On 8/12/15 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/12/2015 3:24 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 1:16 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:04:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 12:26 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:08:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Why do you think they are even the same hard drives? Even if they are, it is trivial to actually erase all of the data with a method that would even prevent NSA from recovering it. The easiest way is to delete the data, then fill the drive up until it is full with anything. Rinse repeat 6 or 7 times if you want to get to the DoD standard. I could write up a DOS batch file to do this in a minute or two. (Yes DOS still runs on Windoze) We are talking Hillary Clinton here, not a computer geek. I am sure that when she was first asked to hand over the server she didn't hop in the Clintonmobile and head for Walmart for some hard drive purging software. That was the point of my comment. If she felt it necessary to attempt to completely purge the drives of all former data as opposed to simply "deleting" emails (and therefore making them available for reconstruction) it would seem that it was very important to her to destroy the data. An inspection of the drive (or drives) should reveal how much effort was made to "erase" them. We are talking about Hillary. I bet she never changed a diaper, nor did she administer that server. She had a geek on the payroll and I bet that "server" was on several different machines over the years. I am a junk collector and I am not still running the same hardware as I was 3 years ago. If Hillary knows anything, it is how to destroy evidence. All you need to do is delete the files, then copy what you want to keep to another machine and destroy the original. I am not a tin hat wearing conspiracy follower, nor am I a computer geek. I just watch the events unfold. Hillary has been very reluctant to give up emails and/or the drives on the server that they were located on. She has been dragging her feet on their releases for a long time. She finally released what she was willing to release due to the increasing pressure and, low and behold, a random sampling of 40 emails contained not just classified info but *Top Secret* info. Now it will become a debate as to what the classification of that info was at the time it was recorded on her server. To me, it matters not. As Secretary of State Hillary had an obligation to both recognize and ensure the security of anything related to national security that even could remotely be considered classified. Her actions follow a typical Clinton style of slowly leaking the truth out in a manner that confuses the issue, causes disinterest and otherwise swings the finger away from them with respect to any mistakes or wrongdoing. In real life, all you have to do to make "erased data" go away is to keep your drives pretty full, even if it is just copies of your music library. If there are no unused sectors, there is no ghost data. Time is your friend. The more times you overwrite these spare sectors, the less chance that anything could be recovered, even with the most sophistocated attempts. I am sure you are technically correct but again, we are talking about Hillary Clinton and her concern about what was on those drives. Like you said, she probably had a hired geek as an administrator for the server although some times we give important people too much credit. It would be interesting to talk to the geek with him or her under oath. Ask what instructions he or she had regarding the remaining data on the server, what to do with it and how. Sheesh. You don't need a "geek" to make the data on hard drives virtually impossible or actually impossible to retrieve. There are freebie apps that do that, and some inexpensive paid apps, too. Anyone who can start up a word processor could do it...even you. |
Erased or purged?
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/12/2015 3:24 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 1:16 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:04:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/12/2015 12:26 PM, wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:08:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It will be interesting the hear of the FBI's inspection of Hillary's hard drive on her server. She claims she "erased" all remaining data. If her definition of "erased" simply means deleted, the data is likely still there and can be easily retrieved. If the drive has been purged of all data, it suggests it was professionally done. If the latter, why? Why do you think they are even the same hard drives? Even if they are, it is trivial to actually erase all of the data with a method that would even prevent NSA from recovering it. The easiest way is to delete the data, then fill the drive up until it is full with anything. Rinse repeat 6 or 7 times if you want to get to the DoD standard. I could write up a DOS batch file to do this in a minute or two. (Yes DOS still runs on Windoze) We are talking Hillary Clinton here, not a computer geek. I am sure that when she was first asked to hand over the server she didn't hop in the Clintonmobile and head for Walmart for some hard drive purging software. That was the point of my comment. If she felt it necessary to attempt to completely purge the drives of all former data as opposed to simply "deleting" emails (and therefore making them available for reconstruction) it would seem that it was very important to her to destroy the data. An inspection of the drive (or drives) should reveal how much effort was made to "erase" them. We are talking about Hillary. I bet she never changed a diaper, nor did she administer that server. She had a geek on the payroll and I bet that "server" was on several different machines over the years. I am a junk collector and I am not still running the same hardware as I was 3 years ago. If Hillary knows anything, it is how to destroy evidence. All you need to do is delete the files, then copy what you want to keep to another machine and destroy the original. I am not a tin hat wearing conspiracy follower, nor am I a computer geek. I just watch the events unfold. Hillary has been very reluctant to give up emails and/or the drives on the server that they were located on. She has been dragging her feet on their releases for a long time. She finally released what she was willing to release due to the increasing pressure and, low and behold, a random sampling of 40 emails contained not just classified info but *Top Secret* info. Now it will become a debate as to what the classification of that info was at the time it was recorded on her server. To me, it matters not. As Secretary of State Hillary had an obligation to both recognize and ensure the security of anything related to national security that even could remotely be considered classified. Her actions follow a typical Clinton style of slowly leaking the truth out in a manner that confuses the issue, causes disinterest and otherwise swings the finger away from them with respect to any mistakes or wrongdoing. In real life, all you have to do to make "erased data" go away is to keep your drives pretty full, even if it is just copies of your music library. If there are no unused sectors, there is no ghost data. Time is your friend. The more times you overwrite these spare sectors, the less chance that anything could be recovered, even with the most sophistocated attempts. I am sure you are technically correct but again, we are talking about Hillary Clinton and her concern about what was on those drives. Like you said, she probably had a hired geek as an administrator for the server although some times we give important people too much credit. It would be interesting to talk to the geek with him or her under oath. Ask what instructions he or she had regarding the remaining data on the server, what to do with it and how. That geek would have been required to have government clearance to work on her email server. |
Erased or purged?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:00:57 -0400, Alex wrote:
It would be interesting to talk to the geek with him or her under oath. Ask what instructions he or she had regarding the remaining data on the server, what to do with it and how. That geek would have been required to have government clearance to work on her email server. The government won't even admit they knew she had it. Who was going to be enforcing these "requirements"? There are really only 2 ways to look at this. Either they were ignorant of the risks and ran this wide open or they understood and had qualified people doing it. I suppose we should glean the suicide reports in the area to see if this geek is even available to testify. ;-) |
Erased or purged?
Sheesh. You don't need a "geek" to make the data on hard drives virtually impossible or actually impossible to retrieve. But why would Hillary want to make the information on her hard drive impossible to retrieve? You act like she has done somethings illegal. Sheesh! Mikek |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com