Welcome To Australia's No.1 Media Center Community!
You Are Currently Viewing As A Guest - you'll need to register in order to participate in our community and make this annoying message disappear!
By registering you'll be able to post & reply to questions, set up your own image gallery & blog, communicate privately with other members, create & respond to polls, access downloads and other "members only" features.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not join our community today - you'll be glad you did!
For any problems with the registration process or your account, please contact support.
Attention All Brisbane & Gold Coast Members!
Markc3012 has created a local user group for members living in Brisbane & the Gold Coast with the goal of creating a network of users to assist and support each other through information exchange and direct support.
Please see this post for more information and to join the group.
The RIAA's forensics experts found that Howell uninstalled KaZaA and deleted everything in the shared folder, reformatted his hard drive, downloaded and used a file-wiping program, and then nuked all the KaZaA logs on his PC.
This seems a little odd to me. Unless he tried to selectively remove things? I would have thought wiping and a format would have done the trick.
I've always thought that multiple wipes, formatting then reloading would do the trick.
__________________
Too many toys is still not enough.
I believe 7 re-writes are needed to be unrecoverable.
But in this case they didn't recover anything. the court ruled that formatting the disk constituted destruction of eveidence and since he did that he must have had something to hide, so he's guilty.
I believe 7 re-writes are needed to be unrecoverable.
But in this case they didn't recover anything. the court ruled that formatting the disk constituted destruction of eveidence and since he did that he must have had something to hide, so he's guilty.
Burden of proof? I think that just went west.
Seemed odd that the "forensic experts" are reported as knowing what he did, but the evidence was destroyed. How would they know?
I agree, sounds like a conviction based on what they think he did. While they may be right, lets hear it for proof!
__________________
Too many toys is still not enough.
I believe 7 re-writes are needed to be unrecoverable..
Not any more Glen, there was an article in a local PC mag a couple of months ago that went into great detail about how easily the foresics guys can recover data these days no matter what process you use - very disturbing.
For my money, nothing beats a taking the HDD apart and shattering the platter into a million pieces with a large hammer - good fun too!
__________________
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
I'm afraid this whole saga constitutes a very sad state of affairs. In effect it means that hard drives cannot ever be safely resold or passed on to third parties if they have ever contained personal or private information. I guess the bottom of the harbour will now become a great dumping ground for smashed hard disk platters.
It seems to me that the judge in this case has erred incomprehensibly. How one can be presumed guilty by virtue of an act which could be construed to be destruction of evidence is beyond belief. If evidence supporting the copyright infringement charge is non-existent then surely the only possible charge relates to the act of destruction. Methinks there is more unsaid in the article than said. Mind you I certainly agree that this guy's lawyers had a very foolish client!
